User talk:Curps/archive27

Hey!!

Curps, I believe you wrongfully blocked a name of mine for angrilly telling a user not to delete an article I rewrote. Please do not do this in the future.

I don't know what you're referring to, and you don't provide any details. -- Curps 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Parma edit war

Hi, Curps. When and how will we know when the dispute is resolved? I am from Parma and believe whole-heartedly that the information being deleted my Mycroft.Holmes is objective and not adverstising. People in Parma honestly do consider the many pet stores an important and interesting part of our businesses and while the Witch Hunt has divided people at various times, it is of extreme importance to recent events concerning the police, politics, taxes, etc. The initial fury associated with the early articles led to such harassment of the former safety director and chief of police that they even resigned. Mycroft seems to be making deletions based on his/her personal stance on either the whole matter or on his feelings about select businesses. A city's history and economy are very important and relevant. Cleveland's page has sections on history and economy. Maybe the segments could be better written or have more references included or expanded on, but they should not just be unilaterally deleted by one user when a number of users (not just me) has contributed to these sections and especially when myself and others have tried to compromise by writing the segments in better contexts. If you look over much of the Parma talk page, you'll see that those who support keeping the material have provided a lot more reasons and references than Mycroft.Holmes who just blanket labels the edits without even acknowledging his/her rationale and if he even borthered to read others reasonging. Thank you for your time, help, and efforts. (sorry, but I don't know how to sign posts)

I'm really not taking a side in the edit war, just trying to get it to slow down for a while. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Curps 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wouldn't expect you to take sides. I have tried to explain my position in posts like the above to Mycroft, so hopefully, he'll come around. I'm more than willing to compromise or have a neutral, third-party rewrite the sections if they think the items can be worded somehow more appropriately, although I honestly don't think that's necessary. We'll see what happens.

Have a pleasant day! 5:33 PM Eastern

Just letting you know it looks like a resolution is being worked out on this matter. We're still waiting to see if Mycroft will agree, but the jist is to add more references for the history section and more content to the economy section in order to ensure that that sections are unbiased and relevant, respectively. Mycroft then won't make random deletions; rather some neutral 3rd party will determine what's inappropriate. Again, this seems like a fair compromise to everyone who's read it, but since Mycroft was the one doing the out of control deletions, we're still waiting for this user to compromise like we all are.--172.131.0.164 19:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 bug fix

Ok, the lead dev on on the bot joshbuddy just applied a patch to it but obviously its pretty hard to tell if the bot won't commit anything while being blocked, I asked freakofnurture to remove the block as it should be patched, if it goes wonkers again feel free to reblock and I'll know the patch didn't work. -- Tawker 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical catalog

Hello. I invite you to come discuss these pages at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Astronomical catalogue. Ewlyahoocom

User talk:Hamedog

User talk:Hamedog is complaining about your block of him. Could you take a look.--Commander Keane 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the wikipedia blocy policy - warnings are not usually given for deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia - but Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism also states "Before listing a vandal here make sure that:

The vandal has been warned with the appropriate warning templates. If you can't justify leaving these messages on a user's talk page, it likely isn't vandalism"

Also vandalism states: If the edit is clearly vandalism, consider starting with {{test2}}.

I also site : Don't disregard policy. Reverting vandalism doesn't grant you any special status nor does it make you superior. Egregious abuse of policy may get you blocked, as well as the vandal. If you're an admin, do not abuse your granted powers. Finally, Ignore all rules shouldn't be invoked if you don't have other arguments to back yourself up with.

You should of looked at my contribs and userpage and atleast told me on my talk page y you blocked me. Also, where should I ask that type of question? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Curpsbot block

I was going to unblock you but Firefox beat me to it... -- Curps 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

K, but we have a problem. I ended up getting past your filters. See: User:FireFox --Rory096 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You intentionally (jokingly) made a certain type of edit for which the trigger threshold is particularly low (some types of vandalism are more damaging than others, so sometimes monitoring is conservative and sometimes it's not). -- Curps 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did you just say Squidbot isn't very damaging? --Rory096 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I said the opposite. -- Curps 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, you did. Anyway, what would happen if the Squidward vandal got smarter, and then just put a <!-tag like this--> in his edits? It would bypass everything we have to protect ourselves against him... --Rory096 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you. We'll see. He can't trust all of his proxies, can he. -- Curps 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you see what I did on FireFox's user page? I managed to get the Image:Squid.jpg on there. --Rory096 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I misinterpreted entirely. It would be better not to try to trigger things, though, it's unhelpful. -- Curps 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to trigger it, only vandalize! I didn't even know your bot did things like that... --Rory096 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking those attack accounts, you're doing an excellent job Curps!! I'll give you a barnstar in a few days time... my own unique one!! --Sunfazer➨ ❝ 23:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again :)--Shanel 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

new keyword suggestion

I just noticed User:HPTroll which apparently got through your bot net for usernames (which I can understand due to at least one legit usernames with the word troll in it) but I was wondering if it is not economical or possible to add it to your block list could you perhaps consider adding in a feature to hotlist usernames for further review, for example saving them to a user subpage or something so that an admin can check them out and verify one way or another, this would only be necessary for certain ambigous terms and names since blatant ones should be blocked immediately by your bot. Thanks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also wanted to apologize for rallying against your bot. It wasn't until I took a good long look at the block logs and the crap that people try to get away with between usernames and blatant pagemove vandalism that I realized how necessary your bot really is. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen P. Signorelli

You blocked this account for vandalism, but the history shows zero edits. I am curious - is there something I am missing? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

His one edit was to post assumed personal info & a threat against my family/property to my talk page - it was deleted by Freakofnurture. - Chadbryant 22:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, ok thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

User:FARVA

This user is an obvious "DickWitham" sock, as can be seen by his contrib history, where he once again removes the DickWitham sock tag from other accounts that he has been locked out of. He has now turned his attention to vandalizing my talk page (see [1]). I do believe this sockpuppet has run its course. - Chadbryant 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing your talk page, you silly goose, and the only reason I am removing the sockpuppet tags you keep placing is 1) you are putting one on MY page and 2) you are putting them on a page where you have been told directly by an admin NOT to put it there. --FARVA 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You vandalized my user page, and you are removing legitimate "DickWitham" sock tags, as you have done countless times before under your other 130+ accounts. - Chadbryant 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, I didn't vandalize your page, I merely put a template in that I thought existed and was unaware of the fact that it did not. It was your priority and choice to remove it or not remove it; frankly, given what you've done to MY user page on a continual basis, I think you owe me some leeway on that. Even if YOU don't think so, *I* do, and so we'll leave it at agreeing to disagree.

Second of all, you grazed right over the fact that you have been told not to place a sockpuppet tag on one particular account. Let's just forget about the fact..no, actually, let's NOT forget about the fact that a good 40% of your user history contributions are placing sockpuppet tags. What does that say about you, besides the fact that you might be a bit paranoid or trolling? Now as to who this "DickWitham" person is, I have no idea. I have not had 130+ accounts on this site, this is my only one, if you do not believe me then that is your choice. I will know the truth, at least. --FARVA 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:195.39.132.53

Hi, I just found out that I have blocked User:195.39.132.53 for 24 hours just after you had imposed the indefinite block. Sorry about that. You are welcome to unblock it and re-block indefinitely if you have your reason to do so. Thanks. --BorgQueen 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you get my email?

I really have no interest in my misdeeds remaining extant, and will revert all of them if my Right to vanish is granted. MC31606 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

Thanks. Wasn't looking forward to joinging that particular religion... DJ Clayworth 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I'm only assuming that this is not you, .se being Sweden, all times U.S. Central (UTC -6):

[06:31] * Joins: Curps_away (n=chatzill@1-1-1-26a.lio.sth.bostream.se)
...
[06:32] * Curps_away is now known as Curps
...
[06:38] <Curps> hello all wp users
...
[06:42] * Quits: Curps (n=chatzill@1-1-1-26a.lio.sth.bostream.se) (Client Quit)

So I checked it (/whowas) and found it was unregistered, probably just somebody fooling around. If you aren't going to use IRC, you should at least register your name to avoid impersonation in the #wikipedia channel, as this could be seriously harmful in the event of an elaborate hoax. — Mar. 17, '06 [20:55] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I don't use IRC at all, don't even have an IRC client program on my computers. I'm really not familiar with how IRC does verification of identity; if it doesn't, then you can't rely on any IRC username being who they claim they are. -- Curps 13:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As stated above I was almost positive that it was not you, as any name not specifically registered by someone can be used by anybody. My concern is that the other people on the #wikipedia channel might not be aware of that, and thus deceived. Really, you should join us, though. — Mar. 28, '06 [19:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Where do you guys find the time to spend time on IRC (and mailing lists), on top of everything else? -- Curps 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Says the person who's on 24 hours a day... ;) (Note: I use the term "person" lightly) --Rory096 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess if we all had the same um... software... that you do, we'd have no use for IRC either. As a communication tool though, it's much more effective than talk pages, or mailing lists. — Mar. 30, '06 [02:01] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

new Johnny the Vandal puppet

User:Johnny_3004. I copied the sock-puppet notice from another of his user pages, only to realize that it says that the user has been blocked. As I don't have admin privileges, would you mind blocking this user name as well and thus closing the loophole? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL

You really blocked a guy named Pelican Shit, thats funny. What did he do? Just vandalize?--Slipknot222 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mr. Pelican Shit. --cesarb 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hucz

Hey yeah, sorry about the Hilary Duff thing, I was running to mainly windows and I edited the wron article...wont happen again. Also, I know my last Aladdin (Super Nintendo) article was the same as my Blaster Master 2 article, but i was only just copying the code I used from Blaster Master 2 and I was gonna replace the info. on the Aladdin article later, but I think you deleted it...

Please stop assuming bad faith

I'm asking you to turn off your pagemove block bot. Admins are getting tired of unblocking the false positives. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked (at WP:AN or WP:AN/I) whether your username should be permanently whitelisted, and in general the replies were not really in your favor. For a non-emergency it's hardly absolutely necessary to carry out page moves at such high speed, and doing it as part of a recurring pagemove war with several other users is even less justifiable. Unblocking you is not all that much trouble (two mouse clicks)... what admins and non-admins are really tired of is pagemove wars. Surely you could resort to discussion and perhaps a survey or voting as a last resort rather than pagemove wars. Perhaps you could consider whether the other side's position has some merit: after all, we have American Civil War and not "Civil War (America)", American football and not "Football (America)". But overall it seems like a big move war over a trivial difference. -- Curps 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Bot

Is your vandal blocking bot off, I've been missing it, during the last couple vandalbot attacks it didn't seem to be active... -- Tawker 15:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Must have been a glitch. -- Curps 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User:RoberTJFox/VIVE LA REVOLUTION

Hi. I'm not advocating the article, but I don't see which bit of deletion policy qualified User:RoberTJFox/VIVE LA REVOLUTION which I moved from VIVE LA REVOLUTION for speedy deletion. It was a personal essay with no evidence of real bad faith, and I'm sure I saw somewhere that these things should be kept in the appropriate namespace, though I can't find it now. Certainly saves an angry user if they didn't save their essay before posting it. BigBlueFish 21:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet of a persistent vandal (see User:TJWhite and a large number of "TJ" sockpuppets). There is plenty of bad faith: he has been vandalizing a number of articles (apparently chosen randomly) by posting copies of this "essay" over them. -- Curps 21:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. It was the sockpuppetry that made it look so isolated. That's where the {{sockpuppet}} template helps (I've added it now). BigBlueFish 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:vandal reversion

Whoa, I don't know how THAT happened. Freak accident, probably. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll be more careful in the future. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:LALALALALA

Hi, Curps. You recently idef blocked [[User::LALALALALA]]. I indef blocked him a few seconds later and added a permanently blocked tag to his user page. He has posted the following on his user page: "I am sorry I was acting childish and I want to contribute positively to wikipedia." I'm going to assume AGF and unblock him. I just wanted to let you know what's going on. Thanks. —Wayward ^Talk 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that variations of this user name have been used to vandalize before. I have reinstated the indef block. Thanks. —Wayward ^Talk 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User page blanking and explanations

You've blanked a number of userpages without explanation in the edit summaries. This caused me to have to dig around to find the reason why they were blanked before I unblanked them. For three of them (User:TJRules, User:ErnesTJones, and User:Gangster Octopus) it was because they were indefinitely banned. For a fourth (User:Robust Physique) I still don't know why you blanked it, and I've unblanked the page. In the future, please leave edit summaries when performing such actions as it saves time of people following in your footsteps. Thanks! --Durin 14:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The first two were socks of User:TJWhite, with some kind of manifesto (he keeps vandalizing multiple articles with this, either by adding it directly or redirecting those pages to his socks' userpages, so removing the userpage helps to deal with the latter). Robust Physique has inflammatory userboxes and may be trolling. -- Curps 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unicode request.

Hi, can you run User:Curpsbot-unicodify on Hindi grammar? Let me know if you need anything to help it get set up. Thanks. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. - Taxman ^Talk 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

It seems like I can edit now, but why did you block me? TJeff 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

is that block real

no offense but how could an indefinetly blocked person edit? Karl Naowaomondhol could still edit his own talk page despite an indef. block. does the indef block apply to his own talk page? Typer525 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A blocked user can still edit their own talk page (unless the talk page gets protected from editing, as a separate step from the block itself). -- Curps 03:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)~

Bill Gates

I'm not saying, and I don't believe, that Gates is a criminal, nor that he got rich by cheating or breaking the law. All I'm saying is that a lot of people see him that way, and that bears a mention in the intro just as "intelligence and foresight" do.

Also, I'm not just referring to accusations of enrichment at the expense of competitors, but customers as well. Gazpacho 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There's not a single major corporation that doesn't run into litigation and regulatory action on a regular basis. The term "illegal" more properly applies to Enron, Tyco, WorldCom etc. where there are actual criminal prosecutions, not regulatory litigation. Don't forget that folks like Joel Klein are, fundamentally, politicians, in the sense that major high-profile cases with lots of opportunity press conference face time are a launching pad for future political ambitions and they have every incentive to talk it up and create headlines. I'm no fan of Microsoft or Bill Gates (though he gets points for his more recent philanthropy), but the wording in the article is just way out of whack. -- Curps 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-NCGov

You are confusing free as in beer and free as in freedom. I have taken it to TFD. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for bot

Please run your bot on the page Hindi grammar to covert its html entities directly into the devanagari script.Cygnus_hansa 15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. I was gonna do it myself but man, you're quick. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 01:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WHAT???

WHY IN THE HELL DID YOU BAN ME!!!! I'VE NEVER EVEN EDITED A FREAKING PAGE BEOFRE AND IT SAID YOU'D BLOCKED ME, SORRY??? WHAT GOOD DOES SORRY DO ME WHEN RANDOM PEOPLE BAN ME????

You were affected by an autoblock. Autoblocks often affect AOL users, due to the way AOL allocates IP addresses. -- Curps 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Coyotee urso roland peel Sanders requesting an unblock

You must have blocked him in the frenzy during the WoW/NCV/whatever account creation, where he got flagged for "eel" in his name, but he appears to be uninvolved. Can you check it out? --Rory096 06:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked (back on the 25th, but not noted here until now). -- Curps 05:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And later turned out to be a vandal after all. -- Curps 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy disambiguation

Hi there. As you created the Ptolemy (disambiguation) page, I thought you might like to see what it looks like now! I've been doing a bit of work on it, and also on the page Ptolemaic and I also discovered the page Ptolemais and intend to tidy that up. One thing I wanted to ask someone, was whether adding this short amount of context (essentially dates and location) is helpful. I find it helpful for disambiguation pages to have essential stuff (the stuff that differentiates the different entries) on the disambiguation page. This avoid people having to click through to each one to see what the differences are. Would you have time to advise on this? Also, now that the Ptolemy disambigation page is getting so large, maybe Ptolemaic should be merged with it and replaced by a redirect? Carcharoth 16:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. As you mention, each entry in the disambiguation page should have enough information so that anyone looking for a specific entry will immediately know which one to click. A little extra detail is better than too little information. Ptolemaic could probably be redirected to Ptolemy (disambiguation). -- Curps 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: legislative assembly

Okay that is fine, but why all this excitement suddenly over this article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I thought you thought I was anti Quebec or something :). First I didn't know it was called National Assembly and then when I italicised it was to show that it was named that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's simply a question of accuracy... that's what its name is, and that's what English-language media refer to it as. Italics aren't usually used in such contexts as per our usual manual of style (especially in encyclopedic writing, where it is very common to present new bluelinked terms in nearly every sentence). I'm a bit puzzled since your user page indicates you're Canadian and have a good command of French, so I thought you were familiar with it and were perhaps making a POV edit. -- Curps 19:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No nothing out of POV. We just call it the Quebec Parliament in non French Canada. I was a little shocked when you used rollback but I understand now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the other Canadian provinces still used the term "Legislative Assembly", rather than "Parliament", which is used only by the Canadian federal government. I think the reason Quebec went with the name "National Assembly" is simply because they copied the name from France's National Assembly. Anyways, you can confirm that the term National Assembly is widely used in English by looking up English media such as the Montreal Gazette (an English-language newspaper in Montreal). I'm not sure what other Canadian newspapers use in places like Toronto, since I haven't researched other Canadian topics, but within Quebec I'm pretty sure they use "National Assembly" as only name in English (official use or common use). -- Curps 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly is the government word for it, but provincial parliament is used widely. For example members are called the Members of the Provincial Parliament. So I guess that Quebec Parliament is used often too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, to the best of my knowledge. The name "Hôtel du Parlement" can be used in French, but only for the building; the legislative body (the gathering of legislators, collectively) is the National Assembly. This is similar to the US: the Capitol is the name of the building, but the Congress is the name of the legislative branch that sits in the building. If you Google "Quebec Parliament" the relatively small number of hits will nearly all reference the building, and the hit count is far smaller than for "Quebec National Assembly" (I get ~1000 vs. ~55,000). -- Curps 20:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I seems that it works differently in Quebec than other provinces where "provincial parliament" is very much used instead of "Legislative assembly". In Quebec the National Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor form the "Parliament of Quebec". But yes I didn't know that's what they called their legislative body in Quebec. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Avalanch707

You indefinitely blocked Avalanch 707 after he or she made just one edit! The user had no discussion page, no block history of anything like that! I think your indefinite block was a bit rash. Can't you just speak to her and tell her it's an encyclopedia? I was actually surprised to see that done.

P.S. I'm meant to be on Wikibreak but when I saw that it really did surprise me. Thanks--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We have lots and lots of throwaway sockpuppets nowadays used for a single hit-and-run vandalism edit. Dozens every day for the featured article, in case you haven't noticed. If someone creates a throwaway sockpuppet for the purpose of vandalism and then vandalizes with it, well, they've thrown it away. Naturally, we block these, there's no point in leaving known vandal socks lying around as sleepers. -- Curps 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Somehow that looks like a WP:BITE to me. Unless this user's some notorious sockpuppet, I think a {{subst:test}} on his talkpage will do? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe he had the misfortune of making his first edit a vandalism edit right in the middle of a flurry of other throwaway-sockpuppet vandalism: Buckshotzzz (talk • contribs), Robotime (talk • contribs), Its Saturday, Its Saturday (talk • contribs) and dozens of others. There hasn't been any e-mail; if I get one I'll certainly consider unblocking. In general though, vandals have figured out a strategy of hit-and-run throwaway-username vandalism, with many dozen throwaway usernames every single day, sometimes several per minute, not to mention the recent Squidward unpleasantness, and in general it has become necessary to block sooner and much more readily in such cases than in previous months. -- Curps 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Again CURPS, YOU HAVE ASSUMED BAD FAITH, I CONSIDER THIS AN ABUSE OF YOUR POWERS AS AN ADMIN, RATHER THAN WANTING TO HELP PEOPLE IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER YOU SEEM TO BE SIMPLY BLOCKING EVERYONE LEFT AND RIGHT. Sorry about the caps by the way. --GorillazFanAdam 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

block of User:GorillazFanAdam

I've unblocked this user, since I can't see the exact basis of the block, the recent edits appear to be to the sandbox and sandbox templates, which although of questionable taste aren't (in my view) vandalism. --pgk^(talk) 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering what I have done that you consider "vanalism", which by the way I have never been accused of before. It would help me greatly if you would explain your reasoning to me. --GorillazFanAdam 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The basis was indeed [2], but you can see he's also made other recent trolling edits (eg [3] and has been blocked before and now has been blocked again (by yet another admin).

I was not blocked for that...I was blocked for for vandalizing a "vandal box", which can be found on the user page of User:Freakofnurture.--GorillazFanAdam 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which block are you referring to here? -- Curps 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The "trolling" block, it was not for adding Moses to the list, it was for vandalizing a "vandal box".--GorillazFanAdam 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In context, in an anatomical article, it's a legitimate image; in the featured article page, it would be outright vandalism; in the sandbox, it's a little less clearcut but still vandalism: the sole purpose was to subject other users to unexpected shock images in a context where you wouldn't anticipate finding them. We had the "super cool" vandal some months back who kept putting a feces image in the sandbox, and that was certainly vandalism. -- Curps 03:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• You assumed bad faith in my case, it was not to "shock" anyone at all, simply testing out the embedded image feature. --GorillazFanAdam 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Caron/hacek vote

There's a vote on Talk:caron where the article should be if you're interested. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

your block of Woolymarmot

Hello, Curps - I've noticed that you've blocked Woolymarmot (talk • contribs) as a likely sock puppet of MARMOT. However, it seems that this account could have been created by a newbie, so I've unblocked it. --Ixfd64 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. -- Curps 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

help please

Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards --Realek 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hey Curps,

Would you be able to please protect the Iranian peoples page? There's a full-scale revert war going on right now, I already added a request at WP:RPP. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the background of the dispute. -- Curps 06:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

hi

Shadin 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Basementscreams

Do you really think Basementscreams deserves a Username block? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and unblock if you wish. -- Curps 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try to keep an eye on him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"oops"?

what happened? your bot is usually pretty good at that--64.12.117.5 22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• as long as I have you here, would mind undoing this ip autoblock, collateral from a denial of service vandal--64.12.117.5 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It was right after I changed something, there was a typo. The IP address should be unblocked now. -- Curps 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry

You/your bot screwed this up pretty bad. Please examine diffs in the history. I am generally appreciative of what you do, but this exposes a major flaw/oversight on your part. Yes, it looked like blanking, but the truuncated version was much better than vandalized one. I left a clear edit summary, knowing that the article would be truncated due to my browser, but wanting to get the vandalism out of the way. I assumed that someone like yourself would see the edit summary and fix it instead of perpetuating the vandalism. Bots can be very helpful, but full automation makes huge errors like this. You should always know what you are doing before you make the edit. Also, edit summaries are there for a reason; sometimes they just might clue you in to what's going on, although bots can't read them. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Truncating a vandalized article is hardly any kind of improvement. It merely takes an article in a damaged state and leaves it in a different sort of damaged state. In fact it arguably made things worse, because the original vandalism merely added nonsense without deleting any information, but you deleted a lot of information. And your edit summary "rv vandalism, but old browser SOMEONE FIX PLEASE" is not at all clear and doesn't explain what you were doing. Making an edit on top of vandalism without restoring the article to a good state is never a good thing, in many cases it just helps to bury the vandalism. I have no idea why you were using an old browser in the first place (the Mediawiki software really should detect and block any browsers that truncate content), but you could have posted to WP:AIV instead of deliberately truncating the article. Despite your good intentions, the effect of your edit was indistinguishable from vandalism and it was proper to revert it. It's not fair to criticize that the earlier vandalism was not detected as well. -- Curps 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:The Psycho

this diff indicates that's he's most probably a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked by your bot for having an inappropriate user name. He's a new user who's been trolling anyway, no loss if he's disappeared. Herostratus 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of redundancy, since it also shows up in the category, and there are several admins who monitor the category (and probably the log) and routinely and automatically un-sprotect the page after two days or so (whether the problem has gone away or not). -- Curps 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Damntheirlies

I beileve you blocked this user without a valid reason, please either consider unblocking him or giving him a reason for the block. It is probably frustrating on his part. --GorillazFanAdam 01:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If this user ever gets involved in an editing dispute with other users, that's the sort of username that can inflame the other users involved... they might take it as a challenge to them. But perhaps it's borderline, so I've unblocked. -- Curps 03:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Williamo1

Hi, over at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Williamo1 on the talk page, someone mentioned that the user in question had made two serious legal threats: [4][5]. I thought that it might make sense to bring these to the attention of an admin. JoshuaZ 06:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Why do you keep on blocking me? It says vandalism but I can't see what I've done. I've just added to the pages, not wrecked them. --ERAGON 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this users contrubuation page[6] I see only harmless edits, no reason to be blocked. --GorillazFanAdam 02:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This username has never been blocked. He must be affected by an IP block or autoblock. -- Curps 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Openthedoor754 and User:Amelia The Weird

What do you think of these two? Both had a short history of good edits, then suddenly the first one vandalizes, and the second one is editing his userpage. I noticed you permablocked Openthedoor, then undid it; was it because of the same confusion I'm having? --Golbez 03:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Openthedoor. He made this edit which appears to be vandalism, but on second look appears to be a mis-revert to the wrong (vandalized) earlier version: [7]. -- Curps 04:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Xchrisblackx

I am the real Xchrisblackx and would like to ask once I do regain my account will the block you gave my impersanotor stay on my record? B/c I'm sure you realize that my account was hacked I mean who blanks their own page? Well I'll alert you when I regain my account

Thanks again for putting my little hacker buddy under control, Mahogany

I'm not certain, but blocks probably remain logged indefinitely. Can you provide any more details about how this happened? -- Curps 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

{Note to Curps my account has been taken over before look at the history} Here's exactly how I found that my account was not mine anymore. March 30th morning I went to get on Wikipedia like always before going to work. I typed my password and found my password was wrong. I couldn't believe it, this had happened before!!! Then i went to my page and found everything was normal. I looked at my history and noticed it looked like a edit war had been raging. I then found that instead of the harraser vandal (the vandal/hacker used profanity to everyone)I had a page blanker. I was then asked by User: Deckiller If i wanted him blocked to control him I of course said yes. And went to contact you, Curps ( Since you were the one who blocked him) I also contacted a few of my "Wiki-pals" and that is pretty well it

The real, Mahogany

Queen Victoria

Well that's just plain daft, innit?!

1. Hello RichardHarrold. Please stick to Wikipedia article title naming conventions (eg, Anne of Great Britain, etc.) When there's more than one monarch with the same first name, we use Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, etc. -- Curps 15:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

--RichardHarrold 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Warel

His last edit may not have been 3rv, he deleted the section entirely which he was previosly reverting to his version of. JoshuaZ 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, Curps, I think you may have jumped the gun a little reverting that one. The "fact" he removed was one he himself had added, was of limited interest even if true, and who knows if it's true? We'd have to read Ohno's paper to find that out; I'm certainly not inclined to take WAREL's word for it. --Trovatore 23:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just to be completely explicit: I'm talking about his edit at perfect number, 23:36 UTC, 30 March 2006. --Trovatore 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked, you guys may be right. -- Curps 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing the names

• Stars: those are the propor names of the stars. You wouldn't just change the name of Vega to Alpha Lyrae! So stop changing the names.

• Galaxy: They call it Centaurus A and Virgo A. You wouldn't maye Cen A into NGC 5128.

If this continues, i'll get an anministrator!
— Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 02:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vega is a first-magnitude star, and for those stars the traditional name is the most common one (and for a few others like Polaris, Algol, Mira). For the others, the Bayer designation is more common. It is you that is trying to do renaming, not me.

Galaxies like M77 or M87 are not the same thing as radio sources associated with galaxies. As the example of Sagittarius A shows, the radio source is often very localized to a very small volume. The radio source is not the same thing as the galaxy. -- Curps 03:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Messier 77

This info I did a few weeks ago has updated acurate info on this galaxy. By changing this, your getting rid of my hard work.
— Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I unreverted the infobox changes, that particular revert was a bit rushed. -- Curps 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

203.186.xxx.xxx

Hallo, this is Deryck again. Can you just unblock all the 203.186.xxx.xxx addresses such that I don't have to use a semi-open proxy every time I use the computers at my home to visit Wikipedia? It's so frustrating. --Deryck C. 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The best thing would be to contact User:Tim Starling and ask him to add your ISP to his "XFF Project". If this can be done, then the problem shouldn't recur. -- Curps 18:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting my user page blanking. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: APRIL FOOLS DAY IS ALMOST HERE

I think we should all be on the lookout during April Fools Day. I know many websites like Maddox's site do April Fools day stunts. And wikipedia is self-editing, so that's something. DyslexicEditor 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop blocking me

Its desperately annoying, and somewhat distressing as I hadnt done anything wrong to my knowledge Philc 0780 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Masters

There's a userbox where people say they have sockpuppets. I put it in a category so you can find their sock puppets. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Sock_Puppet_Master 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RFPP reversion

[8] - Who is the Girls Aloud vandal in this situation? Did you mean to remove the Scituate High School section, which seems to be under legitimate attack? --Golbez 01:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No. For some reason I mistakenly edited an old version of that page (re: User:Jozdnog). -- Curps 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"{{Blocked proxy}} or zombie"

your bot has been making a number of strange blocks like that, earlier today it killed an entire AOL range for that reason, and someone else had to undo the indef block it issued--205.188.117.65 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• this block and a whole host of others like it--205.188.117.65 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's what I was afraid of, your bot indef blocks anyone who uses the word "squidward" in an edit summary, calling them a "{{Blocked proxy}} or zombie", I suspected as much after looking through the edit histories of the IPs it targeted, and this test confirms it, it seems that your bot has the potential to be turned into the next great AOL denial of service tool, all an AOLdosVandal has to do is use "squidward" in an eidt summary, and poof *indef block*--205.188.117.65 02:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

and now for a minor WP:POINT violation on my behalf, your bot now indef blcok me--205.188.117.65 02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• mmmm, ok, problem solved, your bot seems to only block AOL IPs for 15 minutes, and apparently that overides the "SQUIDWARD!!" blocking feature, I guess the earlier indef block on an AOL was the result of some sort of parsing error that's since been corrected? still looks odd--64.12.117.5 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Only one way to test it, hopefully you'll forgive me one more WP:POINT violation, but I'm going to go to the same page that the 64.12.116.196 ip was on when it triggered the indef block, and use the exact same edit summary, and see if your bot issues an indef block, or a 15 minute block--64.12.117.5 02:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• nothing happened, how odd, oh no, there it goes, it takes a minute or so before it issues blocks, problem solved, the "15 minute block for AOL" does in fact overide the "indef block for squidward" part of the bot--64.12.117.5 02:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• also, have you considered taking a page from tawkerbot's MO, and adding an explanation of block feature, that could leave a short message on the blocked user's talk page explaining the block?--64.12.117.5 02:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The squidward blocking is very trigger-happy because squidward vandalism is very rapidfire. I'll adjust it a bit. Regarding AOL denial-of-service attacks, the truth is it's all too easy already anyway. The combination of AOL's policies and software and Wikipedia's policies and software make AOL a suboptimal platform for editing Wikipedia.

-- Curps 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Funkastophadeliexpialadocious

Gosh, all that phun that somebody was having: I almost start to feel sorry for having played a small role in putting it to an end. Underline "almost", though -- and I fear that the end is only temporary. -- Hoary 08:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

New organization / Tools

Seen you on the Bigfoot page. Here is a invite to Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers for you.

Also find on my Userpage a set of Wiki-tools that should prove useful to you. Some are Admin in nature. Go ahead and make a copy for your use. Do you have any Wikipedia-links that I could add to those I alrady have ? Martial Law 09:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :)

User:66.229.17.88

Howdy. About a month ago you were apparently involved in blocking and unblocking a persistant vandal. Instead of posting a warning on his page or something at AIV, I just through I'd bring this [9] to your attention. Not sure on how to field it. Kuru ^talk 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It might not be the same person. The number of recent edits is not very high, so it's less of a problem, but probably worth keeping an eye on. -- Curps 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:4.226.225.207

Curps, Could you do something about this guy? Posting after test4. On AIV -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -The LeftOverChef 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalmatian Kristallnacht

Why are you moving the article? Naming convention is pretty clear - there are no google hits for Dalmatian Serb pogrom. Also, the thing was not discussed almost at all??? Pirkovank 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I moved it back to the original name. Note that the same user (DrGonzo) moved article Borovo Selo raid to the more inflamatory Borovo Selo massacre. Could you please be impartial then and move it back to the LESS INFLAMATORY title - also, restore the NPOV tag there. If you use a criterium, use it always to all sides equally. Thanks. Pirkovank 06:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Thanks. I had just gone to block the IP for vandalizing (in response to having a reposted band brag speedily deleted) when you reverted. I went with a very short block (shrug). I figure it's enough to stop them for a bit, as that particular villain appears to have been a long time between "contributions" to Wikipedia. Such are the hazards of trying to cut down the backlog at cat:csd (which is pretty big most of the time, as we appear to have a new raft of bored British school children). Geogre 19:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My user page

• Thanks for reverting the vandalism. --DMG413 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking criteria

Hello my Curpsy friend, you blocked me for a while (fortunately I was out of town while I was blocked) because I had "misleading edit summaries". If you look at my contributions you will see many elaborate and 'misleading' summaries, but none of my contributions contained the addition of nonsense to an article and never once have I used obscenities (unless you count the words "ho" and "chowderhead"). You are the only user who has ever had a problem with my edit summaries in the time that I have been writing silly things in them. I just want to know why I was blocked if I was honestly contributing to Wikipedia and adding valid information. NIRVANA2764 20:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Users rely on edit summaries to understand what was changed. If you want to engage in performance art, there's always Wikipedia:Sandbox. -- Curps 20:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Radio sourse names

It dosn't matter wether the sourse is part of the galaxy, they still call the galaxy that (i.e Cassiopeia A & Centaurus A). Acording to this, Fornax A is the (as it puts it) MAIN NAME for NGC 1316. Same with Virgo A and Centaurus A. I think if you want to talk about the main radio sourse, thet should call it Virgo A* like Sagittarius A* (more or less, they call Vir A's sourse the Smoking Gun). But would you rename Centaurus A into NGC 5128 or change Sagittarius A into AX J1745.6-2900. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But let me say this, Messier 77's name isn't Cetus A. That was a mistake. LOL, see this
— Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They also call it Sextans A, Camelopardalis A, Sextans B, and Sextans C. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 01:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For some cases, the radio source may have been discovered first and only later the optical counterpart was discovered, in which case it may have made sense to the astronomers involved to give the galaxy a common name based on the radio source. But definitely for Messier objects (like Messier 77 and 87, as you mention) the galaxy already has a very well-known name. -- Curps 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah

Yeah, I made a typo. But you have to leave it as 'committe' or the tempalte wont work. Not worth it to fix it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I done told you. Stop fixing my "typos". Please. savidan^{(talk) (e@)}`

Again, I apologize, but your selective fixing of my typos is aggravating me. It's making it harder for me to add this template. The typo doesn't matter as it is invisible to the end user. If you must change it, wait until I'm finished. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, a move doesn't change the functionality of a template. All you have done is create a lot of double redirects...though. Sigh. I'll have to change my formatting then...I hope that you are truthful when you say all of them. Sigh. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to help me with this template, could you add Category: Monetary Policy Committee or Category: Monetary Policy Committee members to either the start or end template that I created in such a way as it does not put the template itself in the category. Oh, and archive your talk page. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was mean to you the other day. I was kinda stressed out because of the all the errors I was discovering in the template. As I look back on it, you were just trying to help and your contributions were helpful. Hope there's no hard feelings. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich sock

Hello Curps. Nice to meet you. User:Marion1988 has blanked the Gastrich arbitration page. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock of Me

Hello Curps. I would like you to check out one of my impostors, is it possible if you blocked him? He uses the name $WIFTOAK. That's the second this week. Thanks ;) Swiftoak 01:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot wanted

Hi Curps. Can you create a bot for me that will block pagemove vandals and revert their moves?? By the way, keep the good work up! I just sent you an email! --Sunfazer 19:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you help please

I have just put a Dispute tag on Minnie Rae but have to go out for dinner so can't keep an eye on it Can you have a look please. Ta. Moriori 06:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

168.11.96.2

Hi, this user - 168.11.96.2 - is vandalizing some pages, I noticed it first on Portugal, then I checked his contributions and he is doing several more changes, also thanks for blocking the other IP and for reverting his vandalism in Portugal. Afonso Silva 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

69.16.213.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Bah! I was leaving the block notice, then going to block him! Thanks. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Friedrich Nietzsche

I think it is best for you to be aware of the recent subjection of vandalism to the article, and I have so far traced these from the past to moments ago, all following similar patterns: [10]; similar vandalism, different IP, "honest" political distortions, and again. At any rate, I hope we can find some way to bring a stop to this ridiculousness bent on falsifying Nietzsche's claims and so on. I will try to notify others who have been keen on the article's improvement in the past.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Back in February you blocked 68.87.64.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as an open proxy. I was contacted by someone caught on this block; I talked to Tawker who did some magical proxy-checking stuff, and we decided the IP looks safe, so I've unblocked him. Just to let you know, since you were the blocking admin. Shimgray | talk | 17:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's got a few odd ports like

PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp filtered ftp 22/tcp filtered ssh 23/tcp filtered telnet 80/tcp open http 135/tcp filtered msrpc 139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn 443/tcp open https 445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds 553/tcp open pirp 554/tcp open rtsp 593/tcp filtered http-rpc-epmap 707/tcp filtered unknown 4444/tcp filtered krb524

open which is a little unusual for an Comcast consumer IP but 80 appears to be a web server, and I don't see any other common proxy ports there, everything else seems to be normal server ports -- Tawker 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

68.64.65.89

I unblocked because this is User:Sean Black's IP. I noticed you blocked it after once instance of vandalism too. I'm curious as to why, if you don't mind me asking.--Shanel 00:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in question was linked prominently (bolded link) from the main page (in the news). Under those circumstances I'm sometimes trigger-happy, as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy re: "deliberate vandalism intended to discredit Wikipedia", since links off the main page are often the first thing that new users experience after the main page itself and having those in a damaged state certainly makes Wikipedia look bad. Although the featured article is usually the main target for that sort of thing, sometimes that extends to other prominent links on the main page. -- Curps 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

IP address blocks

The IP address block you made to block User:Ihatewikipediafuckthat is the Google web proxy! So you've effectively blocked anyone who is using the Google Web Accelerator! (Oops!) Please undo this block ASAP. See my talk for page for additional information.

NetRange:   64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255 
CIDR:       64.233.160.0/19 
NetName:    GOOGLE
NetHandle:  NET-64-233-160-0-1
Parent:     NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
NameServer: NS2.GOOGLE.COM

--Stephane Charette 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hate to say it but those IP's semi fall into the category of open proxy (as it can be used by anyone), it would be best to edit with GWA off (if you can) -- Tawker 07:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:72.160.79.227

Thanks for helping out in that situation. jacoplane 14:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

well this is interesting

ins't it?--Fernblogin 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

isn't it?--Chelloru 20:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• added a wikilink so you know what the heck I'm talking about--Fernblogin 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

not that you'd actually be able to tell what the heck I'm talking about though, speaking of which, you don't really think I'm sticking beans up my nose? do you?--Chelloru 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to contact the developers, there's not much I can do. I've already contacted them in the past about another issue I consider somewhat serious, but so far unfixed. -- Curps 00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike rosoft

Yes, sure. I have created the account myself to prevent its use by impostors. I am going temporarily unblock the account, for the purpose of an experiment. (It seems that when I type "infinite" in block length it won't be recorded in Special:Ipblocklist, while when I type "indefinite" it will.) - Mike Rosoft 13:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like I wasn't right; I just have to type "Mike_rosoft" when searching. - Mike Rosoft 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpage edit

Hello Curps. Please don't undo my changes to TomYumGoong's userpage - we are friends engaging in a bit of harmless silliness. Thanks! --quo 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

question about protection of articles

hello Curps,

it has been pointed out to me by User:nathanrdotcom that the article Australia national football (soccer) team has lately been constantly vandalised by users such as here [11]. My question: shouldn't the article be put under a protection in that case? or is there a proper procedure or hurdles that need to be overcome first before locking? I am new to sysopship, that's why I would appreciate your help and insight, thank you. with kind regards Gryffindor 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC) ps: could you take a look also at this case here [12] and let me know what you think?

Username blocks

Seriously Curps, how do you catch and block inappropriate usernames all within about 15 seconds? If you became a cop there'd be no criminals left after a month!

Thanks for the revert

Thank you for picking up the vandalism on my userpage - tis appreciated. I think I may have inadvertently become involved in something rather serious! Cheers --Evan C (Talk) 11:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! michael ^talk 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My Vandalism Revert

Thanks for the message, I was in the middle of typing one to you about it. I was trying out the VandalProof tool, but there's a script bug that wasn't letting me rollback properly. I moved over to my browser to fix it but you caught it already. Thanks for the work! T K E 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thumbs Up

on the Esther Hicks vandalism. Carptrash 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

You are one hard-working admin, and I cannot count the number of times I have seen:

Rollback failed

Cannot rollback last edit of Foo by XXX.XXX.XXX.XX (Talk); someone else has edited or rolled back the page already.

Last edit was by Curps (Talk).

I just wanted to let you know your hard work is highly appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot not getting edit summary of Squidward anymore?

It missed this one. --Rory096 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky

I believe in proper title writing the "Is" would be lowercase like I originally had it - but whatever. Cyberia23 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Curps

I can't believe I'm doing this so late (it's 3:20am here), but I think this talk deserves your attention. It is a claim by some new user I had welcomed, that his IP has been blocked (by you?) for being used by someone else (for PA?). In the past (check his brief talk above) he had experienced the same problem (he says he's using a library PC). The guy certainly doesn't appear to be a Saint, but I don't know why I tend to believe him (maybe it's his humor). Is it possible that you could give this a look?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User 203.217.8.30

203.217.8.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to have been trying to obtain my password. JoshuaZ 12:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Please

Please can you delete this Craig chapling

195.93.21.1 blocked

Hello. I've just got this message:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Curps for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Paul2001". The reason given for Paul2001's block is: "vandalism"." Your IP address is 195.93.21.1.

I know I shouldn't admit to this, but I'm using AOL. Shh, don't tell anyone. Anyway, this means that the IP address in question is going to be shared by lots of people other than Paul2001. So I'd be grateful if you could unblock the IP address. Thanks. -- Oliver P. 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

As a dynamic ISP user, I'm used to occasional blocking, but it is now every session and for the first time I'm beginning to wonder if editing Wikipedia is worth the effort. Some points:

1. Why has it not been made a requirement that editors sign in?
2. Why has the suggestion of an hour's delay before new usernames can edit not been implemented (At the moment the vandals can run riot, and only legitimate users suffer)
3. As an admin, I can unblock myself -surely there must be many would-be users who are autoblocked, and simply give up - victory to the vandals
4. If the mimsy approach to vandals is to continue, can the block page at least contain a link to the actual block, so it's not necessary to trawl through pages of blocks to find the correct one

This whinge isn't directed at you in particular, i know you do a good job - I'm just getting fed up with autoblocking. jimfbleak 10:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

important 72.81.120.135

i left a vandalsim message on this users talk page and now he has vandalised all of the articles listed on my user page. he needs banning and pages reverting.

Cheney piece

I don't understand why you found it "trivial". It is an example of the dismal support Cheny & Bush now have in a "time of war". Further, I feel an article in "Editor & Publisher" supports notablity. -- llywrch 19:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL user blocking

• Could you be aware please that if you block an AOL user, you are blocking other AOL users from editing too. You blocked someone called Paul2001 apparently, so I can't now edit. Be aware. The Advocate 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment. As at 14.10 on 14 April, your block is still in place. I did a load of amendments on a page I don't want my name appeared to, but when I tried to save them, lo and behold, your block is still preventing me. A waste of my time by you. THINK BEFORE YOU BLOCK AOL USERS: YOU ARE BLOCKING A WHOLE LOAD OF US, BY TRYING TO BLOCK ONE USER, AND WASTING A HELL OF A LOT OF TIME FOR A HELL OF A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND CAUSING GREAT FRUSTRATION. GET IT? The Advocate 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not blocking a vandal just because they're an AOL user is simply not workable. I don't entirely userstand how this system works, but as I understand it you can still edit - just you have to sign in. If that's the case then where's the problem in that? Though really this all adds to the argument that we should only be allowing registered users to edit in the first place. --Evan C (Talk) 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no way for us admins to know if a user is coming from AOL until after they're blocked. And there are a lot of vandals using AOL, so, even though we try to avoid blocking AOL users needlessly, some blocks can't really be avoided. In fact, there are vandals who deliberately get themselves blocked and then try to edit from as many AOL proxies as they can to make editing difficult for other AOL users. Yes, it's stupid, but then so is most vandalism; it doesn't take much intellectual capacity to add "OMG MY TECHER IS A JERK" to articles.

Fortunately, there are some rather easy ways in which you can avoid all those AOL blocks altogether. One is to install a free alternative browser, such as Mozilla Firefox, and edit Wikipedia using it rather than the default AOL browser. That way, your edits will not go through AOL's proxies, and you will not be affected even if those proxies are blocked.

You can also try changing the proxy configuration for your normal browser; I don't know if that's possible or if AOL has somehow locked down the settings. If you manage to do it, please let me know. (It's also possible to avoid AOL's proxies by editing over HTTPS, but Wikipedia doesn't currently support that.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me...its annoying CrystalLake57 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Based on the username I'm pretty sure it was a sockpuppet. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Curps. I just wanted to say hello because you seem to be a friendly and valuable member of the Wikipedia community. I am a member of the Welcoming Committee and mostly welcome new users and check on their progress and help them with any difficulties. I came across you by checking on a new user and noticed you were pretty friendly with them. Thats all. Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal-revert...

Thanks for the revert on my talk page! ---J.Smith 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

linux and gnu/linux

Hi Curps,

I see you are reverting changes on GNU/Linux and Linux, when I tried to put Linux in a disambiguation page as has been multiple times requested in the discussion page. I do not see any of your comments on the discussion, neither you explain your revert. Please, do explain why you think it is better that way. jbc 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You say there is consensus about it, but I disagree. In fact I can see many references and petitions for a disambiguation in the discussion, being unanswered. Would you mind to show me either the answers or where is this consensus? On the other hand, you are right to point that it wasn't a proper "page move", I was not aware there is a proper way to do it (not cut-and-paste). jbc 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I remain mostly unconvinced, but thanks for showing me the right (wikipedia) way. jbc 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

hey

Almost at 300. Only 2 more after this. Anyway, we haven't run into each other yet, as I do most of my vandal fighting off the IRC, but just felt like dropping by to say hi, and keep up the good work. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WQA

I've reported you to WP:Wikiquette Alerts for ignoring RFCs, and banning those who ask you a question. Such regime like behavior is worrisome. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.172.125 (talk • contribs)

First of all, you don't seem to know what an RFC is on Wikipedia. Second, you are a notorious vandal wikistalking User:Xtra and vandalizing all the articles and user talk pages that Xtra has contributed to. -- Curps 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Notre Dame High School, Sheffield

Notre Dame High School, Sheffield This article needs deleting, i listed it for deletion but somebody removed the notice. If you read it you will see its just full of crap and irrelevant comments it is obviously made by students from the school and when you delete it they will probally make another one. Thanks--Childzy 10:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ^_^

Thanks for blocking those imposter accounts I created just to make sure they were never created :) The recent issue with Chanlord started to make me suspicious. — Deckiller 13:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nr9 indefinite block

User:Nr9 has contacted me regarding the indefinite block you placed on him. He says he has sent you an e-mail without response so now he's sending messages to other Admins in hopes of finding someone to unblock him. You might want to drop the fellow a line in response before he finds one. Cheers. 23skidoo 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixing in here—it seems you blocked him as a sockpuppet of an IP address. That strikes me as a bit strange—people who've edited anonymously, and then register, are not ordinarily considered sockpuppets. Moreover the IP address has never been blocked. I also didn't see anything in Nr9's contribution history that looked permanent-ban-worthy (not that I looked at the whole thing). Maybe you should request other opinions at the adminstrators' noticeboard or something. --Trovatore 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sockpuppet of an IP address". He is very likely a sockpuppet of Odmk69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Imitating Odmk69, he deleted nearly all the content of Taipei American School [13] and preposterously called the deleted content "vanity" [14]. The Nr9 sock also did some trolling at Al Qaeda and 9/11 pages, for what it's worth. More to the point, there is a long history of vandalism at Taipei American School, dating back to about a year or so, almost certainly all the same person, and this is very likely that same person. The earlier edits were mostly IP addresses, but I suppose he moved on to registered socks when the software was changed to no longer allow anon IPs to create articles. -- Curps 22:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. The block summary didn't specify who he was supposed to be sockpuppetting, and the "suspected sockpuppet" template on his user talk page lists him as a suspected sockpuppet of User:136.152.170.134, so I jumped to conclusions. Maybe you'd like to clarify the template. --Trovatore 23:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I have reason to belive that the following accounts are sockpuppets. Is there any actions to take against them? They have not done any major vandalism that I know of. However I noticed that you have once taken action against Commondore Kevles a few days earlier. For evidence, notice the similar name (Rank Kevles) and the format of the user page ("Hello" in diffrent languages then followed by the Communist symbol). --Typer525 ^Contact 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Commodore_Kevles
User:Admiral_Kevles
User:Captain_Kevles
User:Warlord_Kevles

Undoubtedly they are sockpuppets, but it's not clear that they've done anything to warrant blocking. -- Curps 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

for reverting vandalism on my user page (and blocking the socktroll who did it). dbtfz^talk 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

re: history restore

I didn't know he was a sockpuppet, but looking at the article I did realize that parts of the history (unrelated to vandalism) had been deleted, per the GFDL I think those needed to be properly undeleted. It might not be clear from looking at the article history now, but what had happened was someone had just pasted a copy of the deleted article to recreate it, the pre-vandal revisions needed to be properly restored. --W.marsh 22:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well like I say, I didn't know he was a vandal/sock until you told me. If I'd known that from the get-go I would have blocked him myself. --W.marsh 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Hi Curps, please see this. The permabanned User:Bonaparte has recently been using socks to target Romania and Moldova-related pages. His socks User:Iasi and User:Chisinau have not been blocked yet. Please help, thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive blocking?

Hi Curps. I'm curious why you blocked [a certain user], given that that user doesn't exist. If this is some kind of preemptive blocking of a potential inappropriate username, it seems a little futile to me, since a vandal could simply use a slightly different name. Or is there some other reason this makes sense? User:dbenbenn 00:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently accounts do get deleted sometimes, and with good reason. You should probably delete the userpage too so it doesn't appear in the category. Keep up the good work.--Craw Returns 00:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are also 135 variations on your own name that are blocked though the user doesn't exist, such as User:Ķûŕṕś. Is it true that user accounts actually get deleted? If so, do you think these deleted accounts should remain blocked? User:dbenbenn 00:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the block page even lets you block a nonexistent username. -- Curps 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I just unblocked User:Ķûŕṕś, and then was not able to reblock. I guess that indicates the account was indeed deleted sometime between January 7 and now. Odd. Anyway, I guess it makes sense just to leave all those names blocked. User:dbenbenn 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Sorry about the edit on Canada. The bottom portion must've gotten cut off when I was formatting the image layout and previewing before saving. I had no intention to vandalize.—G.He_(Talk!) 20:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.5

User 205.188.116.5 has been repetedly vandalizing Pi. Please look into the situation.—G.He_(Talk!) 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Apparently stopped for now...)

Deleting things from User:Talk pages

Yo Curps, you deleted a comment on my talk page by another editor. Although he was clearly a sockpuppet (or at least an easily led fool), I think it's inappropriate to delete others' comments. Is this a special circumstance, or are you involved in a campaign against this guy and his minions? Anyway, feel free to respond or not to, and happy editing. -Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please delete....

I made a move then foundout that move wasn't what I wanted for a archived talkpage so can you delete User_talk:Sgrayban/archive_1 and User_talk:Sgrayban/Archive_1 -- they are only redirects I don't use in my talkpage anymore. Thanks. --Scott Grayban 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hurricane Devon

Cut me some slack. I didn't understand the copyrighted rules back then. — HurricaneDevon @ 11:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism

Thanks fo defending Liberalism against attacks by vandals. In this revert war, the replacement of liberal democracy by liberal communism remained intact. I restored this. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block

No problem. Now, the comment I was about to leave 20 minutes ago: sorry that I messed up {{Border}}. I thought changes there were the cause of screwed layout in {{Serbia-bio-stub}}, but the only way I could check it was to experiment with it. (Well, I still don't know why the layout was screwed, but I worked it around). Then you came in and the roof fell... Regards, Duja 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

MetaProject on open proxies

I see you or your bot has been active in blocking open proxies. Would you be interested in contributing to the MetaProject on open proxies (local chapter), which coordinates open proxy management between several participating Foundation wikis? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't really have the time to work on open proxies on any kind of regular basis, it's just something I do randomly at long intervals. -- Curps 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User:12.2.142.7

I noticed your reply to unblock on User talk:Psiphiorg - it (was) a zombie proxy, it doesn't scan on nmap, it appears to be a corporate to CATERPILLAR Inc, I'm leaning to AGF and assume the botnet software is off and unblock but I wanted to ask you first to prevent a wheel war. Cheers :) -- Tawker 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK go ahead. However, according to him the IP address in question is a non-open proxy used by all corporate employees to access the Internet. If the proxy server itself wasn't compromised they may have a zombie computer within their network sitting on some employee's desk. I don't think "AGF" is an issue, since nobody in their organization intentionally wanted squidward to abuse their computing resources. Lots of large organization are still running Windows 2000 and what not, I just hope that in this particular case they're a little more secure. Anyways, go ahead and unblock. -- Curps 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know its likely an insecure proxy but there is a chance that they've purged the malware from their systems. Your bot is good enough that it stops 'em within 30 seconds anyways, so no major major damage done :) -- Tawker 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

User Dean2008

Dean is a student of mine here and he was not the one editing, I saw the President Bush thing and I also saw a student messing with that article when dean left his computer to use the restroom, I would appreciate it if you unblocked him so that he can continue to correct vandalism, it's what he likes to do in spare time

Redirect page Microosft

This is a common misspelling and should be continue a redirect. You has deleted this page (former). Often performed by myself and many other: so a redirect is needed. Please do not delete this page. Sub950 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Continents

(no reason to comment out interwiki and categories within noinclude)

Thanks for spotting this oversight!  Best wishes, David Kernow 22:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

block

Why have i been blocked? I didnt vandlaise anything! Warmon 02:11, 20 April 2006

Thanks for the explaination man, your clarity it appreciated.

Are the russian contributors above the rules? 3RRR breaking violation of User:Irpen

Are the russian editors above the rules? Why shouldn't that apply to all users? They reverted my edits and Bogdan's.

I posted his breaking rules on:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Irpen

Let all the people see what kind of people are in Wikipedia.

--Andrei George 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing happen so far...

Three revert rule violation on Uprising of Khotin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irpen (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

• Previous version reverted to: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49122359&oldid=48934943

• 1st revert: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49122359&oldid=48934943
• 2nd revert: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49253537&oldid=49186274
• 3rd revert: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49318130&oldid=49258375
• 4th revert: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Uprising_of_Khotin&diff=49319141&oldid=49318621

reported by Andrei George 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing happen so far, and now the user has started to revert a lot of romanian related pages. --Andrei George 14:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, so I can't really get involved at this time. Since you have posted to WP:AN/3RR, the administrators who monitor that page will consider the issue. You can also try the other steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution including a Wikipedia:Request for comments. -- Curps 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best, but please help me out of this. He started to revert all my edits, breaking human rights of the people to have their own church, own right to say that they are romanians. We live in 21 century not in Middle Ages...

--Andrei George 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I followed your advice and I started a Request for mediation, --Andrei George 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL 172's

As a former AOL subscriber, I noticed that AOL dialup IP addresses in the 172 range are assigned on a per-connection basis and remain "static" until the user disconnects or gets dropped by the carrier. These are recycled much less frequently than the others (there's over five million of them), thus 15 minutes on a single IP in this range is usually not enough. 172.194.231.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did some penis and breasts vandalism, got blocked for 15 minutes, posted some crap on his talk page in the interim, then continued doing the same shit. A longer block for 172.*.*.* IPs would at least force AOL vandals to actively disconnect and reconnect rather than sitting out an amusingly short block. — Apr. 20, '06 [21:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• That's probably not such a great idea, 2 reasons:

1) they may not know that, and by appying a different standard to 172.*.*.* users, you may alert them to the fact that all it takes is 3 seconds and you can have yourself a brandnew 172.*.*.* ip to vandalize with, so rather than sitting out a 15 minute block, they'll simply realize that they're unblockable, and could go on a never ending rampage, and you'd be forced to block 172.0.0.0/255 or whatever

2) I'm not using AOL dialup, but I have a 172.*.*.* anyway, there are tons of other explanations for the 172.*.*.* users, and most are far less straightfoward than what you've suggested, I can change my ip in a heartbeat, no logging off required, the fact that you probably don't know how, tells me your not ready to even be invloved with the AOL issue at all--172.152.237.86 00:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

3) that took me how many seconds to change my ip? 15, 16?--172.169.127.61 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's 172.0.0.0/8, not 172.0.0.0/255, and not all of that range is AOL. And there's nothing special about what you describe, lots of other ISPs work that way. However, your ISP tracks all the IP addresses you use by the way, and if we ever need to formulate a "acceptable use" or "terms of service complaint" to them, a pattern of rapidly switching IP addresses will kind of stand out. -- Curps 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not that simple, I mean I'm not even an AOL customer at all--172.144.53.130 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RE 69.210.*.* blocks, Gay/Queer/Wikipedia Vandalism

Please revise the block down to 30 to one hour, the IPs are dynamic (not sure of the exact setup) and the possibility of collateral damage is fairly high. Thanks, --Avillia 03:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Avillia 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Theyre at it again: Could you revert the ones you've done and just apply a rangeblock for a hour or two? Thanks. --Avillia 05:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 24 hour blocks are appropriate, these don't seem to be proxy addresses of any kind, so the likelihood of collateral damage would be fairly small. I tried rangeblocks over the past few days, they didn't discourage this person. -- Curps 08:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unicode on Obesity

Thanks for alerting me to my unicode problem. I'll have to get a better editor. --Slashme 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn you're fast!

Well done. I wonder if we'll have to take the unusual step of applying sprot to an AfD debate? Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are undoubtedly a rouge admin of the finest kind :-) I award you the tireless barnstar for your work fandal-fighting. It should be running at double speed for you, mind... Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps

I feel shame for humanity knowing that there are user identities that act like you do on the internet out there. 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Rufus4442345

I feel delight for humanity knowing that user identites that act like you are indef-blocked on sight in Wikipedia. The rouge admin posse strikes again! Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Strelchock

While the AFDs might have been filled with socks, that is no reason to go and delete the article. There are plenty of legit users that voted merge and only two that voted delete. Protecting it as a redirect to the list after it has been merged (with history) seems more appropriate than just {{deletedpage}}ing it. Kotepho 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Listed on DRV as you seem to have wanted anyways. Kotepho 04:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Curp's recent reverts on World War I caused a lot of confusion: the bot reverted legitimate edits and several of us thought that someone named Curps was starting an edit war. Anyway, my point isn't to complain about the false positive, it's to make a suggestion. It would be very helpful if you would make mention of the fact that Curps is a bot in the edit summary. Ragout 02:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord's ban timer

Should now be reset to 2007-04-19 based on most recent edits to Bigfoot (this article has been SPed by Bishonen to stop him). --69.117.7.63 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked!

You blocked me mistaking me for someone else, thats not my IP address. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Curps for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Futur19". The reason given for Futur19's block is: "vandalism"." Your IP address is 72.14.194.32.

You also blooked me through blocking User:Futur19 who uses the same ISP as myself but is not me.

My IP is 72.14.194.27. Please address this. --ScienceApologist 06:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My IP is 72.14.194.32 and I am sick of always being blocked! I share this IP with 450 other users on cable modem, could you please stop blocking my account? Thanks. Blacknail 06:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's really nothing I can do to prevent this. It seems you guys are using Google Web Accelerator, which uses some kind of proxies, so when a vandal who also uses GWA is blocked many other users who use it are also blocked. Note I have no way of knowing ahead of time that any given username like "Futur19" is or isn't using Google Web Accelerator or AOL or any other ISP or proxy IP address. The only people who might be able to help are the developers, through the so-called XFF Project, which might allow blocking of the underlying IP address of the vandal rather than blocking the Google proxy IP address; I've left a message at User_talk:Tim_Starling#Google_Web_Accelerator_autoblocks_cause_large_amounts_of_collateral_damage. Please follow up with him. -- Curps 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Paul Kane

Argh. You're right. I was copying the reference style and must have got the articles mixed. Ugh. Lesson to self: never edit when tired. ;-)

Unblocked User:ADNghiem501

You blocked User:ADNghiem501 yesterday, citing "vandalism". That appears to be a mistake; I couldn't find any vandalism. The user asked me to unblock, so I did. Just thought you'd want to know (in case there's something I missed). User:dbenbenn 16:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that was a mistake, related to his Help:Edit summary edit which removed interwiki links. [15] -- Curps 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I only replaced with the latest content which I took a copy from Meta. When I deleted the previous content before this, the interwikis were removed and I was going to restore them immediately. It's a waste of my time for 1 day since you blocked me. During the block I couldn't edit anything except my own talk page. Note I sent you an e-mail yesterday, but later, I contact User:dbenbenn at the Wikimedia Commons regarding this subject above. -- ADNghiem501 17:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Block-o-bot

I think its acting up, its been indef blocking a few users with no traces of vandalism that I can find, can you take a look please -- Tawker 17:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure User talk:CasanovaAlive and an ip User talk:86.3.115.169 are the two that I unblocked. As a side note would you be able to email me the criteria that it looks for when it auto blocks, I want to make sure I've got all of the criteria as you obviously catch a fair bit of vandalsim (my email address on email this user works fine) -- Tawker 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I've re-blocked CasanovaAlive with a link to ANI, thanks for the swift reply. -- Tawker 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, 86.3.115.169 did substantially truncate an article [16], but he says it was accidental so I did unblock. That was the featured article of the day, and since these get lots of vandalism I did lower the threshold a bit on that one. -- Curps 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tbeatty

You may want to look into your block of Tbeatty, it doesn't look like vandalism to me. NoSeptember ^talk 20:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked. The reason was an AfD notice on a main-page-linked page, which is something that vandals sometimes do, but obviously he's not a vandal. -- Curps 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how quiet Tbeatty and Unreal128 were about getting blocked. NoSeptember ^talk 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gyanendra of Nepal

I fixed the articles introduction, yet you reverted my edits. What's your problem? Susej dahij 21:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw this edit and the one above, and concluded he was probably just here to cause disruption, so I rolled back the other edit from his contribs list, so whatever. — Apr. 22, '06 [21:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Uh... why was this user blocked...? I checked his contributions. Aside from some incivility after his initial block he appears to have abided by Wikipedia policies. KI 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hellooo.... KI 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Was not blocked by me. -- Curps 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You seemed to mistakenly block my original account JohnnyCanuck, Could please correct this ASAP --JohnnyCanuck2 22:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my $0.02...although JohnnyCanuck did get involved in the Elliott Frankl dispute, he had an established edit history primarily on hockey-related articles, and he has been making an effort to resolve the Frankl situation in reasonably good faith. I haven't seen much evidence that he was actually a sockpuppet of the Vaughan Watch crowd; to the best of my knowledge he's a separate person who only got wrapped up in the matter because of Frankl's connection to the International Hockey Hall of Fame. Is there other evidence that I'm unaware of, or would you potentially be willing to consider unblocking him since even I — the admin who took on the primary responsibility for managing the whole mess in the first place — don't think he was a sockpuppet? Bearcat 23:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: he did make some inappropriate personal attacks on pm_shef and theonlyedge with the JohnnyCanuck2 and JohnnyCanuck3 accounts. I'm still doubtful that he's actually a sockpuppet of the VaughanWatch crowd per se, but given that kind of behaviour I feel obliged to withdraw my support of his request for unblocking. Bearcat 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As JohnnyCanuck has requested it (see his talk page, I have made a request to confirm/disprove that he is a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch at WP:RFCU. I thought you might want to know, so you can comment on it, if you choose. Mangojuice 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Since JC did appeal and Mangojuice has put in the checkuser request, I've lifted JC's editblock on a probationary basis as a matter of good faith, but I set out the condition that he's not to make any edits relating to pm_shef or theonlyedge. If he contravenes that, or if the checkuser comes back indicating that he is a VaughanWatch sock after all, he'll be reblocked. Bearcat 08:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blok me i had a laugh i said

WOW sockpuppet

Salil2k on Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Evan Robidoux 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon makes legal threat

Could you make 128.211.254.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s block a tad bit longer for making a legal threat against me/you that he posted on his talk page? Moe ε 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert, but this time, I think he meant it out of good faith, but thanks anyway. Whopper 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Organisation vs Organization

Thanks for the feedback but "organization" looks a lot better than "organization". "Organization" is the way it's spelt in the Oxford dictionary. Besides, the use of 'z' in those particular words seems to make sense.

Well that sucks! I guess I'm one of the 25% then! Pnatt 23:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked IP Address

A few hours ago this computer was blocked from editting because of vandalism done by someone. This is a public computer (although its mine) and different people use it de temps en temps. I tried to use Wikipedia hours ago and I couldn't because someone else used this computer to vandalize. It has caused inconvenience but it's ok now. The IP address of this computer has changed and I banned the person who caused this inconvenience from my Cyber Café for a week. I also apologize for the inconvenience caused by that vandal and I hope that this doesn't occur again. Also please tell me the vandal's user name and the article she vandalized. Please place your response under the Talk Section of my Talk Page. Take care and have a nice day. :-)

Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

IP blocks of 213.249.155.246 (talk · contribs) and 213.249.155.240 (talk · contribs)

Hi Curps! I have looked at the requests for unblock category and came across these two IPs, blocked indefinitely as open proxies used by the Squidward vandal. I am curious as to whether they are really open proxies, because thew appear to be used by the East Midlands Broadband Consortium, something which probably would make them regular shared IPs which the Squidward just happened to use (in which they probably should not be permablocked). Can you look at it again? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion can be found at User talk:CaptainVindaloo#Regarding 213.249.155.240, and possibly other places. The guy said he was going to talk to some folks about the apparent security exploit, but, do we really take the word on this? — Apr. 25, '06 [09:05] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Squidward was probably using a botnet, some of the computers he used are within corporate networks (eg, a major machinery manufacturer). In some cases we were aware that the IPs in question probably weren't open proxies (I generally used the edit summary "open proxy or zombie"), but generally if we failed to block Squidward IPs longer than 24 hours he'd just reuse them again the next time. It's probably OK to unblock after a while. -- Curps 08:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the f*** was I blocked?

I had just created an account yesterday and was told everyone at my place of bussiness was blocked from editing by you just because some little idiot in my place of bussiness used the username horse fucker and so everyone got blocked from editing just because of him.You could've just blocked himfrom editing, which I strongly suggest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeyjerimiah (talk • contribs) 16:35, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you tone down your request. Using profanity isn't going to get anything done faster. In fact, it will probably make Curps want to dismiss you. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I couldn't have blocked only him. The way that blocking works on Wikipedia, every user that shares the same IP address as a blocked user is also blocked temporarily. There's no way to prevent this, short of not blocking at all. Requests have been made from time to time for the option to use modified forms of blocking functionality in Wikipedia's software that would have less "collateral damage", but at this time it seems unlikely that this will ever happen. -- Curps 08:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Block-Bot- Broke

Its acting up, its been indef blocking a few users with no traces of vandalism!!! Please take a look please -- Tawker

---

Curps

Something din't work out right with a general AOL block. I don't know what caused it. It only happens when I tried to save something on this kids "Cat Lover" site. It said it was being blocked by Curps I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it but see what you can do to clear it up please. File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)--merlinus 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL is particularly prone to so-called "autoblocks", because of a combination of AOL's policies and Wikipedia software, and in general there's not much that admins can do to prevent it or even know about it in advance. Wikipedia software is intentionally designed to temporarily block all users sharing the same IP address as a vandal (which happens quite often on AOL), even longstanding logged-in users with a known track record and reputation, and only the software developers can do anything about that, and it seems unlikely that they ever will. -- Curps 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Text Removal - But Lenin's mum did like one up the bum

But Lenin's mum did like anal. AJP Taylor once said so. 172.214.57.220 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

That's Disgusting!--merlinus 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pornography on Wikipedia?

• I Don't want to be a Boy Scout but there are a lot of children that use Wikipedia here! I found this Photo posted today that though not nude is clearly sexual in a way that we should not permit. I also have my doubts that it is copyrighted. I am not an administrator so I can not delete it myself. So will you take a look? Its Image:Julia Bond.jpg Image:Julia Bond.jpg

• GASP* Sorry, but that's not even pornographic. We've got much worse in articles about pornographic actors and actresses and articles about pornographic movies. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's milder than most Britney Spears photos. In any case, it's on track for scheduled automatic deletion since no copyright information was provided. -- Curps 08:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Bot

Hey Curps, thanks for blocking some of the vandals creating redirects from the FA. I think we have neutralized him now: 08:09, April 27, 2006, Kungfuadam (Talk) blocked #150292 (expires 08:09, April 28, 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Hollandrood". The reason given for Hollandrood's block is: "vandalism".)--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:69.109.175.216

Hi Curps. This user is requesting to be unblocked, claiming that they were testing and didn't know about the sandbox. It look like they were only given a test1 before the block. Any thoughts on unblocking them? Cheers TigerShark 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I haven't gotten a response from you but I see that your account another block since my message. I am therefore assuming that your bot is currently using this account. As I can't contact you and the user's request seems valid I have unblocked them. Cheers TigerShark 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This anon vandalized three articles in rapid succession, all of which were prominently linked from the front page at the time. Just prior to that, he edited the Wikipedia:Introduction sandbox to add "VANDALPROOF SUCKS" (so he's perfectly aware of the Vandalproof tool used by a number of RC patrollers, and so is unlikely to be a genuine new user experimenting). Good faith is a bit of a stretch, however at least he didn't vandalize further after your unblock. -- Curps 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Care to take a look?

Maybe I'm wrong but newly created User:Tanjaaa looks suspicious to me. Moriori 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but perhaps not, and nothing really actionable in any case. -- Curps 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh!?!

Do you want to help me to understand why you reverted my conversation with Ceddars? Michael David 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, see your talk page. -- Curps 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for that very clear explanation of the revert; even a computer challenged person like me could understand it.

And I thought it had to do with the subject Cedders and I were discussing: ‘Clinical Depression’ – I was going to offer to send you my card. (kidding) Thanks again.

Be healthy,

Michael David 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

earth to curps

[17] Umm since when is "(including this article)" not an outrageous violation of no self reference? If you're going to insist that the paragraph stay, you're responsible for making sure it doesn't stink. --Gmaxwell 06:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth to Gmaxwell. Sometimes Wikipedia and Wikipedia actions and events are part of the story, as is the case here... and perhaps you recall a certain pair of French physics authors and the article about them and its history? The article became "entangled with the external event", as is the case here. -- Curps 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. You *NEVER* say this website in an article.. haven't you read No Self Reference or the manual of style? If you need to talk about Wikipedia, thats fine.. you refer to it just like any other third party site. The text of our articles doesn't just end up in Wikipedia, plus the professionalism factors. On another note, I'm somewhat concerned.. do you realize you've made 11 reverts to that article in the last hour?--Gmaxwell 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All of these are sockpuppets, and the style is extremely reminiscent of the banned user Wik, who creates entire armies of sockpuppets at the drop of a hat to conduct edit wars. Please talk to User:Jayjg, who was dealing with this in recent days. Based on these recent edits alone, it seems Wik may be behind, or part of, the Wikitruth site. Since Wik is a banned user (banned by Jimbo himself) it's entirely legitimate to revert any contribution by him. -- Curps 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first point in your message above, the solution to this would be to rephrase the paragraph in question, not remove it entirely. -- Curps 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that doing so would resolve my complaint, which is why I suggested you do so. If I edit it, I'm just going to remove the paragraph because I think it's beyond repair.. and because I don't think it's appropriate at all. As I said in the first message I left to you, if you insist on the text.. then make it not garbage. --Gmaxwell 07:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the paragraph doesn't make sense. It factually describes actions taken by Wikipedia in connection with the Wikitruth site. Do you also intend to edit John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy to remove all references to the actions that Wikipedia took in response to that controversy? When Wikipedia itself is part of the story, "self references" are also part of the story. Regarding the edit, if it's the parenthetical phrase "including this article" that you object to, go ahead and remove that. However, beyond that I can't read your mind to guess what phrasing you would find satisfactory, particularly since you describe the paragraph as "beyond repair". -- Curps 07:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact make an edit [18], not sure if that's what you had in mind. -- Curps 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:531351

Look at User:531351's contributions. He is a vandal moving pages. Tim Q. Wells 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Has been dealt with and blocked.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester

Thanks for the quick revert, I was hoping it would be changed quickly. I also hope it was funny in one of those unfunny ways. Teke 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Moe

Hello Curps, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself of onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure You've Had This Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You may have had it, but you deserve another Computerjoe's talk 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for the quick response, but a little more AGF would go a long way. Kotepho 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Last edit to wikitruth

I noticed in your last edit that [19] you removed the "Wikipedia Response" segment from the Wikitruth article. Out of curiosity, why that response in particular, and not adding a sentnce describing its removal from the blacklist? I can't say that I fundamentally disagree, but it might be good to hash out whether it would be better to keep that segment in, in the interests of honesty and completeness. (By the way... your talk page is huge!) Captainktainer 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, somebody else removed it. I reverted, but then re-reverted. -- Curps 06:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I'd looked further back in the history I would have noticed that. I guess I'm curious, then, why you re-reverted :-) Captainktainer * Talk 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Georgia (country)

Mind if I unprotect Flag of Georgia (country)? Wik is very helpful in finding open proxies for Wikipedia to block. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage! --Doug (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Warn vandals

Don't forget to warn the vandals you revert or blocks. If there are an temporarily block for an IP-address, please indicate this by inserting any block template (such as {{test5}}) on the IP talk page. If there are vandalism acconts, please insert {{indefblockeduser}} or {{vpblock}} on his or her talk page. Thanks. --Andlog00 12:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User: 216.208.8.232

Continues to vandalize doesn't even give me a chance to revert it check article Simon and Garfunkel please block him I've warned him three times Mahogany

We've been listed

Looks like we've really managed to piss off Hurricane Devon. I think he really needs a vacation. :/ --Jyril 18:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

You must pardon my mistake at Kelly Clarkson. I edited under a previous version of the article which had been vandalized and did not realize I was conducting a newer edit within the same page; I did not see that I was removing the categories and languages! My apologies for my mistake! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL/Proxy blocks

Hello, Curps. Please be aware that when you or the autoblocker blocks IP numbers used by AOL you block innocent anon users and registered users. I recognize that this is a software problem with the autoblocker, but this happens to me frequently. Please see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection (which I was just blocked from editing) for a history of this problem. I would appreciate a prompt release. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Curps for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Porqué usted odia". The reason given for Porqué usted odia's block is: "sockpuppet used abusively"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.132.

As mentioned on the previous occasions this has happened, administrators don't know ahead of time whether any particular user happens to be an AOL user. You may wish to contact developer User:Robchurch to see if any proposed software solutions might be ready any time soon. -- Curps 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize you're trying to avoid a drawn out conflict

but you should really read the talk page before reverting it, there really isn't any vandalism--172.150.130.38 06:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. The constant switching of IP addresses was suspicious, though. -- Curps 06:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

reverting vandalism on Chew Valley Lake article

Thanks for your help with this. I've never got an article on the front page before & hadn't seen this sort of vandalism before. I think I inadvertantly overwrote one of your revisions - sorry Rod 15:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Curps. I'm just wondering why you made this rollback (with no explanation of why the edit was reverted)? Cheers, — FireFox (υ|τ) 18:04, 03 May 2006

The anon IP made some dubious edits before and after, so it seemed that particular edit might not be reliable. I don't have a tape of the episode in question. -- Curps 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:George Washington

First, I want to thank you for reverting the vandalism done to the George Washington article. Enlight of this I would like you to comment on the discuss I start on the talk pages entitle Fully Protected. Please read my statements carefully and voice your opinon. Thanks for everything!--(Steve 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

Please Explain

Why is it acceptable for Chadbryant to go hither and thither across Wikipedia posting fallacious sockpuppet tags, but it's not acceptable to return these tags to him? He is most certainly not editing in good faith. Linden Arden 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Block 195.93.21.98

Hey. I sent an email about this block, but I foolishly forgot the IP. I've been blocked for 'vandalism', and that was the stated IP, though by checking through the block list it would appear the blocked IP address is another AOL user like myself who shares the same address (the vandalized pages are ones I have never so much as viewed). Certain pages I can edit, others I can't which is extra wierd. I'd appreciate if you could lift the block. Thanks. Qjuad 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP addresses are badly affected by "autoblocks", which are a feature of the Wikipedia software. AOL compounds the problem by randomly switching IP around, so that you're using one IP address to edit one page and a different IP address to edit another page; one of those IP addresses may be autoblocked (because of previous vandalism by another AOL user who happened to use that same IP address) while the other might not be. Autoblocks affect all users who use a particular IP address, even logged-in users. Unfortunately, there's really nothing I or any other admin can do about this; the situation is likely to recur in the future. Autoblocks usually expire after not too long. -- Curps 05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion vandalism

[20]

The personal information is also in the edit summary - have you flagged it for admin removal or can you do it (I"m afraid I don't know if you are an admin). Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, but the current process for removing such edits from article histories is very labor-intensive and errorprone, so I don't do this. It would be useful if the developers modified the software to make doing this this more practical. -- Curps 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

block

If you leave a note on the user talk page when you block a user, it may prevent reduplication of effort. -lethe ^{talk +} 21:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the "block log" link at the top of the Contributions page for that user, to see if the user has already been blocked. In the case of a user who's vandalizing, you should always check the contributions anyway to see what other articles might need reverting, and then the block log is just one additional click. -- Curps 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Current events

Hello Curps/archive27 –

I'm trying to get some discussion going on two proposals regarding the current events page, but so far have gotten little to no response. Since you have recently edited the current events page, I'm asking for your input on these two proposals:

• One proposal (this is the big one) involves putting the daily events from the current events pages into article-templates, a lá the monthly pages from 2003 to 2005, as well and having a consistent number of recent days on the current events page instead of a monthly archive. This would allow for the current events page and the respective month pages to be updated simultaneously without the monthly archival. For more, see the current events talk page.

• Another proposal involves merging the content of the regional current events pages (such as British and Irish current events and Canadian current events) into fewer continental articles. For more, see the current events WikiProject talk page.

Your input on one or both of these issues would be appreciated. joturner 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Loyola Unblock

Thank you very much for unblocking our IP range. I have opened up a three-way talk with Kungfu Adam and Loyola's network administrator to pinpoint the vandal should he resurface. If he does, I think the best idea would be to let him simmer for a day or two and gather a few IPs. Hopefully one of them will be from a residence hall and it will be trivial to figure out his identity based on his IP address.

Finals end next Wednesday, I believe. All undergrads must leave campus by Thursday evening. Hopefully the jerk is too busy studying for finals to resurface. --DCrazy talk/contrib 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

Are you in a position to deal with the personal info in Solar eclipse? I wouldn't know where to start. DJ Clayworth 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The developers need to create a way to do this with one click, it's just too laborious (and above all, errorprone) otherwise, so I avoid dealing with this. You could try asking User:Freakofnurture. -- Curps 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The revert that you did restored some vandalism, I have remove the nonsence. KimvdLinde 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

69.210.*.*

Thanks for the update, I'll have a preliminary report of my analysis of all edits by the wee-hours of the morning (4-5am EDT). --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:I looked at 69.224.225.220's edits, he's blocked in error

That is novel, but I can't say I'm surprised that someone's done that.

Anyway, an anon user who has used numerous IP addresses (most recently 69.224.225.220) persists in vandalizing articles about certain movies, TV series, and studios by adding false information. Here are some samples:

• Columbia Pictures: variations on "Columbia Pictures has been purchasing Warner Independent Pictures and Alien Productions to cost with $10.6 biliion." [21][22]

• Paramount Pictures: "Paramount has been purchasing TriStar Pictures and Alien Productions to cost $10.6 billion." and "* McElligot's Pool (2007) by Dr. Seuss (with Alien Productions and Nickelodeon Movies)" [23]

• TriStar Pictures: adding unconnected studios to the list of films [24] [25]

• Warner Bros. Television: adding non WB titles [26] [27]

• Warner Independent Pictures: adding unconnected studios to the list of films [28]

And so forth. So I stand by my block, though it may do no good against someone who uses different IP addresses. tregoweth 01:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POOpDeCk12 (talk · contribs) unblocked

I undid your block of POOpDeCk12, as it seems that scatological references were not part of his intentions. The poop deck actually refers to a part of a ship. --Ixfd64 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage-archival

As you have a very high-traffic user-talk page, you probably have problems with archival. I've just written and had approved an extension for Werdnabot that will manage and archive any sections older than a preset value to a specified page. For more information as to how to mark your user talk page for archival, please contact me on my user-talk page. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse reports

Thanks; I responded in the appropriate place. I think the abuse reports is a worthy initiative; let's see if anything comes of it (my own experience dealing with ISPs is less than encouraging, but maybe we'll get lucky). Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your revert

Hm. I just glanced over your revert at this link and I don't see why you reverted the edits by user:Finell. I see nothing wrong with the edits - I'm not sure if it was an accidental revert, but I see nothing wrong with the edits by Finell. Do you mind if I revert it back? Cowman109^Talk 05:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And wow, what I just said was painfully redundant. Sorry about that. Cowman109^Talk 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't look at the edits close enough. I think the user may have accidentally commented out the second half of the page -- I will see if I can remove the comment and re-add his copy-editing changes. Cowman109^Talk 05:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The last edit by him commented out the entire latter half of the article. I left a message on his talk page. -- Curps 05:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. He apparently added to a comment incorrectly, so instead of it ending with a -->, it ended with a >. Cowman109^Talk 05:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Range block, now

Collateral damage can fuck itself on a vacation, as far as I'm concerned. — May. 7, '06 [06:02] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

User:Bugman94 collateral damage

User talk:Bugman94 is suffering collateral damage from your block of 68.112.162.83. The IP is a repeat offender.--Commander Keane 19:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand

I like the way you deleted so quickly and closed the Afd of Sarah Elizabeth Alexander,

On the other hand

I don't like the way you didn't sign your edit of the result. Georgia guy 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I was a little too rushed. Let me check if I did that elsewhere. -- Curps 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avillia Trolling

You and I seem to be reverting the same trolling on WP:AN/I. Is the 71.139 range to wide to block? It seems that might be appropriate at this point, as I'm pretty sure the edits are coming from Avillia. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

Somebody has been impersonating you on the Daily Kos wiki. --Rory096 08:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not much I can do about that. -- Curps 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Me and my friend (screenname Martin Van Buren), keep getting blocked from editing because horse fucker and his buddies know our passwords and vandise in our name. I keep trying to explain, but JRawle blocked me from leaving messages and has accused me and Martin Van Buren of sockpuppetry and I'm kinda in trouble. I need to know how we can change our passwords. ThanksBlopij 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You change your password through the preferences page. Plugwash 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are probably being affected by autoblocks (blocks placed on another user which also affect you because you share the same IP address). -- Curps 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Shanel

You accidentely rollback me 3 times in Shanel userpage to the vandalised version while I was reverting Jake Remington vandalism on that page. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong page deleted & protected

You protected Christian jaskolka with {{deletedpage}}. However, I must point out that this is not the correct page title - the correct title is Christian jaskokla. In fact, the page with the incorrect title never even existed before, so I recommend deleting the former page and/or moving the {{deletedpage}} tag over to the latter page. 05:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The uppercase version of it is a deletedpage, as is the lowercase version of the other spelling, so no harm in protecting both variants. -- Curps 05:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Commonwealth Games article

I thought that I should write to you and mention that I have reverted the 2006 Commonwealth Games article back to Evan C, immediately following your reversion of the article to from 58.166.17.236, back to Jconsi.

This is because, when you reverted the vandalism by 58.166.17.236 back to Jconsi you inadvertently reverted the article back to another vandal.

Evan C's edit is the most recent non-vandalised version of the article. Figaro 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User page thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page. What I find odd about the recent AOL vandals though is that they seem to be using the same edit summary that 172.147.67.173 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) used to vandalize my user page awhile back. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Loyola vandal

Hi Curps, I sent you an email about the action that the system administrator has taken to identify and stop the vandal if the vandalism continues. Thanks!--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL denial of servcie vandals

created template:AOLdos to notify people when the majority of an AOL range has been autoblocked by a dos vandal--172.128.61.118 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:209.242.170.5

Hi Curps! I noticed this user on Inquisition and realised that s/he does not have a life (Check out its contributions). Since I always see your speedy and effective anti-vandalism efforts on Main Page FA's, I figured you might be the right person to talk to. I hope you could block him indefinitely or something so that many editors (esp. Tawkerbot2!) could save some time for a cup of tea or other constructive contributions. Thanks! 199.111.230.195 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks :) 199.111.230.195 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for the quick revert of vandalism to my user page! You, sir, are a damn fine vandal hunter. bd2412 T 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

rename of hindenburg article

I am attempting to rename the article "Hindenburg disaster" to the more general "Hindenburg (airship)". You reverted it. May I ask why? Regards Blimpguy 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the issue of lost history with cut and paste name changing. Is there a preferred way to change an article's name? Blimpguy

Stupid me. I looked for a "rename" function all over the place and completely missed "move". Thanks for the pointer. Regards. Blimpguy 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Mindpillage

Hi -- you blocked this user as an impostor/impersonator of Mindspillage (and I agree, it's best not to have both of those usernames here), but the guy appears to have not been an impostor and wants to make a new username and join wikipedia... but the block on his username is interfering. I told him if he logs out and doesn't edit for 24 hours, he should be able to create a new account, but I was hoping I could convince you to help him out by temporarily unblocking him. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to say thanks for being on vandalism patrol in general, and for protecting the Adolf Hitler article in particular from vandals. Drogo Underburrow 23:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a lot 'o Liking

Hey pal. Looks like a lot of people don't like you for blocks and strong counter-vandilism attacks.

1. I'm a Wikipedian. 2. The Adolf Hilter page... needed some very serious help. 3. I was unvandalizing the page. 4. Would you mind looking into the changes rather than just reverting articles automatically? 5. AT LEAST give some reasons in the discussion pages rather than spontaniously do that? I did. Colonel Marksman 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Adolf Hitler, I'll reply there. -- Curps 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)