User talk:Blakegripling ph/Archive4

On the money, bro.

Maybe it's just that I've gotten older, but what passes for pop culture nowadays is tantamount to a collective reduction of the world's IQ on a grand scale. I've seen other articles on pop stars get clobbered and I agree 100% about that Avril Lavigne doofus. No Wikilove here; the sock drawer he created was immense. It's like I've asked a hundred times: Why do the doofusses (doofi?) always have dynamic IPs? I've written on a diverse range of subjects and I've had a ball doing it. One subject ad nauseum would drive me out of my skull. Here's hoping the fanboys find something a bit more manly to write about. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Nice as that would be, take heart in knowing that You Are Right. When the fanboys start in, hit that rollback key. Not as satisfactory as trying to slap some sense into someone obsessed with the subject, but it'll do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. You're doing it right, unlike those who are blinded by the subject. Here's a cookie to go with the strawberry shortcake. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) 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 their talk page with a friendly message.

Speaking of "blinded by the subject," I see you've met MascotGuy. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun, isn't he? Four years, more than 1000 socks. I was the guy who actually made contact with his mother under my old username. One of his pre-MascotGuy socks was an e-mail address. I tried to contact someone on the other end explaining the problem and that's how I got an insight as to what this guy's all about. Thank goodness you're an Eloise fan. That article about the animated series is a favorite target. I swing by the article every so often to see if he's been there. He pops up about once a week or so. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Geronimo

I once again fix this article, my revision is better because it has a music career, tv, and film so editor wont be confused of adding statements. See it Tol. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope so...

...because the reaction seems mixed. I've gotten some very nice comments from some users and other users seem to think I've flipped. Oh, well. It beats developing "wikistress" over the rash of adolescent vandalism these servers are subjected to each day. I actually feel pretty good about this situation. I'd mentioned how I'd gotten burned before, but that was then. This situation actually seems to have turned out OK. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you're sweetThe Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why?The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um you do know i am a guy :)The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for being a funny bastard and offering support The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starczamora

He keeps on suspecting me as a sock. I dont really know that wiki user. But anyway friend, thanks for your comment on the noticeboard. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Blakegripling ph, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Thank you so much for the thoughtful note! It meant a lot. A very merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. :) Gotta run, but I'll try and log on soon. There's a problem with a new user who's using his personal pages for self-promotion; I happen to think the guy is delusional. Oh, well. Takes all kinds. Anyway, I'll talk to ya soon. Merry Christmas! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find him here. I'm heading over to the AN board and leave word there. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 19:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merry Christmas

Thanks, and Happy Holidays to you too! (I would have said Merry Christmas, but it's over already.) I would have just replied on my talk page where the thread started as usual, but I wasn't sure if you would still be watching for a response. :) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was my introduction neutral, if not what are your advises so I can improve on it.

--Mediamacks (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk page notification

RE [1]: Technically, users are allowed to remove notifications on their own talk page. It is discouraged and confusing, but it is allowed. See WP:BLANKING. This has come up several times for discussion, see Wikipedia talk:User page/Archive index. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Autumn Misery

I blocked this user as a Gerald Gonzalez sock; he requested unblock and another admin wants to know why we consider him a sock. Do you think you could leave a comment? Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grwp

The FBI don't care a toss about some juvenile nuisance; unless he's a viable federal threat in real life, they will do precisely nothing about him. However, whatever happens on Wikipedia, you should be aware that things are happening elsewhere such that it's unlikely he will be around for much longer. --Rodhull andemu 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dammiery

Looks like someone else came to the same conclusion and took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

By friend, it's the same context when some editor of Tom Cruise or Adriana Lima's page considers himself as his/her friend. Could you point out which part of the article has issues on neutrality? I'd edit it if you find neutrality issues.

Re: Your AIV report on Samgel27

Thank you for your report on Samgel27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have however declined to block for the following reason:

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins who watch AIV may not be familiar with Gerald. I trust your identification as being accurate and it is obvious to those of us who recognize his pattern of behavior. WP:SPI should work but you might consider using as evidence something like Gerald Gonzalez, Samgel27 and maybe a few more socks to make it explicit. Fastest is to bring it to the attention of admins familiar with Gerald as you did with me. --NrDg 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Locsin

Hi Blakegripling ph, User:Samgel27 has reported you as a vandal at WP:AIV. But, your edits to article, Angel Locsin, are obviously not vandalism and so, I have noted on the page, WP:AIV, that your edits are not vandalism....Just thought you might want to know! - Fastily (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why you keep reverting edits as "vandalism" using Twinkle? Content disputes should be discussed on talk pages and not become an edit war by reverting each others edits. Misuse of Twinkle and reverting of others edits, especially marked as vandalism without proper justification can lead to you being blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He correctly identified a sockpuppet of a banned user. This is not a content dispute. "Rollback" or "undo" with a comment should be used in Twinkle instead of "Rollback (VANDAL)". The edits are not blatant vandalism but are generally POV edits and massive changes to article content with no explanation as to why. --NrDg 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Hi Blake, sorry but Im not the user that what you think, im really not a sock. Its just a missunderstanding. Samgel27 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Clare Thomas.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Clare Thomas.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. kollision (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Tool

Hi Blake, I just applied awhile back for a Rollback Tool and was granted a minute or two. I think it would be a big help for you in reverting vandals mostly in Philippine celebrity articles. It simplify things a lot! Have a blessed holy week. axrealmdotcom (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again, my friend. :)

Had a very nice Easter, by the way. Thanks for the nice words. I locked down the Eloise article for the next six months; here's hoping that'll at least keep him at bay. He wrote a remarkably lucid entry on the Microsoft article, but being who he is, it was deleted. Why that monkey hasn't caught on that anything and everything he does will be reverted or deleted is simply beyond me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that isn't a bad idea. In fact, I'll do that right now. It's such an esoteric subject that it's unlikely that a new editor will want to work on it...and we can always unlock it if necessary. Off to lock it down for good. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]