I'm the fucking king around here. Revert my edits again and I'll fucking sue, (Personal attack removed). --59.13.220.92 11:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
*monocle* :) Syrthiss 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My page and others have been hit by User:Irate again, under the unsubtle guises of User:GrahamPP, User:84.9.193.230, User:84.9.210.112 and User:87.75.131.146. I'm got an incredible amount of stuff on in real life at the moment, so can't keep a close eye on things - can these IP's be brought under the existing ban? Many thanks in advance for any help that you can give. Aquilina 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the changes I've made to User:AndrewBourke. Hopefully the sockpuppet won't revert the changes before you read this message. --Tokachu 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
is a proxy server, blocking it to prevent User:ZoeCroydon from editing will cause other users to be blocked during their working day. (Perhaps this is a good thing).
Paul Tracy|\talk 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
other half of this conversation is at User talk:217.235.215.177
Please help me get Aiden to discuss the matter instead of throwing around template warnings. See Talk:Haditha_incident#Possible_Speculative_Reported_Statements. Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Haditha_incident. --217.235.215.177
If it matters, I believe FruitsAndVegetables133 (talk · contribs) is now FreshFruitsRule (talk · contribs) Ardenn 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering your mediation edit "removing a spurious accusation of vandalism from an uninvolved, anonymous party - sorry for delay, will give a full response later today".
I'd just like to point out this edit, which includes the same IP.
RandomP 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
LoL. Did you make the ACME Auto Thanker or did someone else make it? It's really hilarious! G.He 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a whale, dude! Now I can edit!
User:Flameviper12/sig 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I'm running (or considering running) for sysop. THus, I have to push down my vandalism and move forward into a new age, one of reverts, admin-notifications, and helpfulness. You're an admin...I was prowling Recent Changes recently (to beef up my edits and to prove that I AM not just a useless crap), and I chose to hide logged-in yusers and only main namespace. I discovered something rather bothersome; IPs never bothered to summarize their edits. I can understand not pputting an edit summary on vandalism, but I don't get not summarizing anything. It isn't really that hard to add the summary "fix grammar" or "new section". So, I was wondering...could you notify people of that somehow? It's a lot easier to weed out vandals when it's obvious that they're vandals. Perhaps on the Main Page (if only ffor a few seconds)...? I understand that vandals would realize to make misleading summaries, but there could be a person who checks the summaried edits. Not it! Anyway...thanks for your help and consideration... Flame-viper12 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
File:User-Flameviper12.PNG | ~ Flame-viper 12 11:42, 13.06.06 |
Netscott loved that little poem you shared with us re: censorship sham! Thanks for the day brightener. :-) Netscott 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
His IP address is 156.63.113.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[1] (not the wikipdia edit but the e-mail campaign. It is not his first. In the past he e-malied admins to block me (several of them mailed me the e-mail) Zeq 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sam - check Moshe's talk page. I responded to him there prior to removing his offensive allegation from my page. Homey 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sam, here are the responses I posted to Moshe's page regarding his allegations. I did so prior to removing them from my page. Do you have a problem if I remove his personal attack from my page now?Homey 21:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samuel, Regarding SmartCode Corp. - there are many articles about them and they Notable according to WP:CORP
RFID Journal (a crediable source in the industry):
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2296/ https://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2295/1/2/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2250/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/670/1/1/ http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1869/1/1/
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/05/22/rfid.retail.ap/index.html
Information week http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=54201330
Network World http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/applications/011968.html
DC Velocity http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/rfidww/rfidww20060503/rfid_5centtags.cfm
RFID Gazzete: http://www.rfidgazette.org/2004/11/index.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SC Web (talk • contribs) .
There were also the ones that have changed their vote after the Cleanup - one of them OnPatrol is acctually the one that put the advert tag and he had requested to Keep the page.
Since it's a Notable entry what is the problem to keep it? SC Web 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
for unblocking me! TorenC 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to 196.xx.xx.xx; he's been warned before for inserting links to (presumably) his site (see [2] for example, coming form a different host in the same subnet), so I reasoned that test4 would be appropriate. I hope that's in order. dewet|✉ 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Works now. Thank you Danl 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for unblocking 204.8.195.187, the school district's IP address. Now I'll be able to edit Wikipedia when I have access to a computer! The end of term is coming up anyways (around June 16), so after that you don't really have to worry about vandalism. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Clever rebuttle on User_talk:WoodDaver. Props. --mboverload@ 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Question about the slating procedure transwiki - who is responsible for doing it? Is it an admin thing, or should I do it (as I nominated it for AfD transwiki)? Thanks. Girolamo Savonarola 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote in overturning and undeleting my recently removed Heinen's article. I don't mean to repeat myself, but I just feel as if very few people have considered what I said fairly or carefully and I thank you for doing so. As a new Wikipedia user (we all have to start somewhere), I did not feel welcomed to the community and this was the reason for my anger (and therefore SHOUTING); I had put so much time into defending something that became somewhat precious to me and it was taken away quickly and unreasonably (something a bit confusing and stressful for a new Wiki user.) But anyways, in regard to the article itself, I left out quite a bit of information that I will be able to fit in correctly if I am given the time. I had some questions about copyrighted images and how to get copyright information/ get the right to use these images in my article, etc (which I can probably find in Wikipedia I guess), but it seems rather complicated. Any help would be great. Thank you again for your suppport. Bluebul1989 15:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You claim, that I recreated the Wikiethics proposal in my user space is wrong. I copied User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics before User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics got removed. Raphael1 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Your block on User:Lightoftheworld seems most unfair. Are you suggesting that people can freely come onto Wikipedia, deliberately and provocatively break UK laws even after being constantly told about it, cannot be then told that if they continue to do that it may result in legal action? It is not clear here that Lightoftheworld himself was actually contemplating anything of the sort as he is unaffected. It would appear that he was attempting to make it absolutely clear to the offenders their precarious legal position. That is surely different to a personal threat?. You as an intelligent individual must be able to see the unfairness here. Sussexman 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thw debateable point is surely whether he himself is trying to get someone arrested or simply warning someone they are breaking the law and so risks that. If I had written something that caused offence or had broken a law I would naturally wish to be told. A legal threat, as such, could only be made by the individual being slandered or whatever. Sussexman 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I see your comment on Humansdorpie's Talk Page. I would be extemely surprised if any of these entirely anonymous people are intimidated. And from what I can see, you have taken the words etc., out of context here. It seems to me at least that a few Users are acting in an extreme and provocative manner and with absolute malice. Several users have attempted to point out the various points why they should not do so, and they might as well have been banging their heads against a brick wall. Small wonder that some of the advisors have gone overboard. None of us like being ignored, do we? My personal opinion is that none of us are above the law and as Wikimedia are available world-wide they should respect the fundamental laws of the UK concerning internet abuse. My other view is that political demonising obsessions should be left out of Wikipedia (User:Lightoftheworld comes to mind). 81.131.13.57 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
other half of this conversation is at User talk:Jtdirl
There are four reasons reasons why the template was inserted:
Using the template removes the many deficiencies that were occurring with the non-template responses. As such it is important for the user being responded to and everyone else to be aware of the decision, why it was reached and a warning not to try to circumvent it by deleting the response. On every occasion where the template has been used the message has not been deleted, an improvement that seems to have stopped the earlier ungoing problem of deletions of unwelcome responses and the posting of another unblock me template. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Just as someone who's been continually frustrated by 8BJ as much as he has, the rationales for his unblock request have not been dealt with at all, and the more information coming as time goes on only exaberates the problem. Add to the fact that 8BJ sees this entire situation as a justifiable retaliation on FRCP and it gives me great pause, too. I don't want to open an RfAr on 8BJ, but I certainly don't want to lose another good editor because 8BJ is being coddled in favor of whatever the hell is going on. Please reconsider your thought process on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"I'm thinking of adding a notice to the top of my talk page saying "All comments followed by a signature longer than 2 lines of markup (on my 1024x768 screen) will be deleted on sight." Thoughts? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"
In a recent DRV conversation, you asked "Would you mind telling me where it says that contested speedy deletions get automatically sent to AfD". I replied on the DRV page but wanted to copy you here as well in case you didn't get a chance to check back on the discussion.
Paragraph 3 of the current header of WP:CSD reads "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does [fall under a given criterion], discussion is recommended using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." That wording applies to all speedy-deletion criteria, not merely case A7. The wording has been tweaked over time but in my experience has always been interpreted as a requirement to undelete and use xFD when there is any good-faith objection to speedy-deletion.
Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Of course, he'll need to understand we won't tolerate any more of that. NSLE (T+C) at 15:17 UTC (2006-06-09)
Sorry to over-react, but I'm sure that it's not beyond wikipedia to somehow sort out whether or not an IP address is shared? Thanks anyway, but someone has unblocked me. Thanks Lofty 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the BNP article - If I knew how to give you an award, I would give you one, you lovely lovely man. xxx HawkerTyphoon
On the 24 pages is this being over used? ((24)) Please advise on the situation as it appears on the page of every sigle character and is uneditable please also advie on how to edit it.Lucy-marie 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Samuel Blanning, thanks for unblocking me. I thought your comment was pretty funny too:) -Squeak 03:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow; that was quick! Thanks for that; much appreciated. — JEREMY 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at these two users if you didn't.
For Kramden4700 (talk · contribs), see [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and his identical behavior and interests to this user's other sockpuppets, such as uploading numerous screenshots from TV news right after the account was created.
For Tobyvonmeistersinger (talk · contribs), see [8]
Steers got horns kid, you don't (talk · contribs)'s only three edits were to correctly tag Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) and Tobyvonmeistersinger (talk · contribs)'s pages as socks of Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). Your closing comment was inappropriate and indicates that you didn't really look at the evidence. 70.108.138.47 10:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you made the right call in deletion (even though I voted keep.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
At the point of the sockpuppetry enry, there were at least 2 and possibly 3 votes that were suspect. No implied threat on the keep vote here; I just forgot to add to the section after voting a (marginal) keep. Cheers. Alex 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
RandomP already suggested those reasons for governments to restrict the printing of money. I belive I addressed them, did you miss that part of the disscussion? Should I restate the arguments in a different manner? Carbonate 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting. I wonder if Curpsbot can add Konob to his list of blockable names? Probably kinda pointless since it's pretty low grade vandalism, but it seems like this guy is counting them up like trophies. Mak (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain why you removed the listing for Tales of the Seventh Fleet from the ST Fan Productions article? You are, I know, aware that their individual article was deleted since you were the one who closed it off. That result, however has nothing to do with the ST Fan Productions page where TOTSF easily fits in with the criteria that has been agreed upon. Unless you can show reason why not, I shall be reverting your change.
You are most welcome to discuss your thoughts on the discussion page of the article, since your action would mean a major change in inclusion criteria. You do know what the criteria are don't you?--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to report that not all of the flags on this page are visible even though in the page edit they all apear please can you assist in fixing this problem.Lucy-marie 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd here. You thoughts would be appreciated. Thetruthbelow 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you be able to integrate the material from the German wiki article on Paul Fagius [10] into the English article. I can read the German, more or less but my German isn't at an encyclopedic level. I ask because I noticed you translated Protestation at Speyer thanks! Sumergocognito 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems our old friend User:60.234.157.64 has been acting up on Socialism, among other things. Clearly an address of the puppetmaster's, clearly a vandal. Can the IP be blocked? --Nema Fakei 11:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samuel. I have read your request on the Wikiproject User Page Design Committee's talk page and most of those changes seem reasonable. What people seem to not be getting is the point or focuses of the project, how members were aquired, etc. I think the changes you are proposing are reasonable and Thetruthbelow would agree with them, not sure how he feels about it though. I am also considering moving this to Wikipedia:User page design committee so its not considered a WikiProject anymore, because that also seems to be an issue. I read that you would help with some of these changes with a little endorsement, so here it is. :-) — The King of Kings 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
One last thing, I think that we should still help the person by going to their page and designing a little, but explaining to them as we do it. I dont want the project to become just a guidline, instead i want it to be a do-it-yourself page with someone to help you if you need it. Thetruthbelow 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have also changed the Design requests to help, with an explanation that we only help, not design the entire page. Made other changes also. Thetruthbelow 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
We have recently made even more changes to the project. When we created the project, we set out with the only intention being helping other users. We have greatly expanded the do-it-yourself section, changed the "hired gun" aspect of the project, and also listened to all of your suggestions. We want to be able to help all users, new and old, with everything technical about wikipedia, but we can't if we are deleted. So I beg you sir, from the bottom of my heart to reconsider, especially after all of the changes and improvements we have made. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
...over on the Merseyside article. Please could you take a look and hand out any semi-protections and sockpuppet blocks you deem necessary ? Many thanks, Aquilina 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm making this request on behalf of Alpinoch...he/she had created the article NameAction, which was initially quite spammy, and I had ((prod))ed the article as such on June 16. Alpinoch made what I believe to be good faith efforts to remove the promotional-sounding text from the article (which left very little, but...). I added ((business-stub)) to the article later that day, and left a note on Alpinoch's talk page that he/she could add content freely, but without the POV/promotional material. I got a response on Alpinoch's talk page today stating that the article had been deleted (after only 3 days, and the ((prod)) tag had been removed). Any chance of getting the article restored to Alpinoch's user page so that he/she has an opportunity to improve it somewhat? I have no doubt that there is some tie between Alpinoch and the company, but if the claims that were in the article are verifiable, the article may have some value. Thanks! --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, I must say that you are doing an amazing job. When I originally came up with the idea for this project, I never thought it would be this good. You have greatly improved the project, and for that I am grateful. Actually, I was wondering if you would join in on the Esperanza talk page about merging this project with the trading spaces one. Let me know what you think, Thetruthbelow 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For dealing with vandals, being a great editor,
and helping users. Also for being a great editor! Sunholm(talk) 11:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
As a person who was falsely accused by M. Wolok as mentioned in my RfC, I thought you might be interested. -lethe talk + 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, it's a blue link yet again, and doesn't have deleted page on it. It's apparently not a recreation as it establishes "notability" which was missing before. As the sci-fi.com "site of the week" claims of notability were totally shot down in both AFD and DRV, I really think it should be speedied. - Hahnchen 14:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that, I'm having major difficulties on my computer...I think it's being hacked or something. Either way, that wasn't me on the Myspace thing (I don't even have one) and i'm not the one deleting your question. I'm going to contact my ISP tomorrow to see if they can do anything.
Sam, please see [12] for the reason for Flameviper12's indefblock, in particular, edit comments like
do not inspire confidence in Flameviper12's willingness to be a good-faith editor. Note that this page-move cascade started by moving an article-space page (Goth cartooning), and occurred after Flameviper12 had been unblocked from two previous indefblocks by promising not to be a vandal any more. (See [13] for block log.) I can't see how Flameviper can legitimately complain about this: this comment shows that he clearly knew at the time that being "banninated" again was a likely consequence of misbehavior.
Flameviper12's only response to the block to date has been to blank his user talk page, with the edit comment "I don't think so". -- Karada 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Does that "21" on your userpage denote your age? Tanager 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a user that is making unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here[14]. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me. Maybe as an administrator you can talk to him and see what his problem is. I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and have fun. He has accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks? I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Anyways thank you, best regards 69.196.164.190
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.
The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C
Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe this to be wrong. Tempers may fray sometimes but you cannot accuse everyone of legal threats because they state the obvious to other users who are clearly breaking the law. It appears that no less that three users have been blocked for pointing out that Gregory Lauder-Frost was being defamed on Wikipedia. Had ten or twenty users argued like this would they all be blocked too? 86.139.185.202 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)