Jump to content

User talk:Elockid/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Nanga Parbat

Xero675 (talk) is User:Nangparbat's sock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisissparta109 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you havent noticed by now I am removing the edits of a banned user not adding anything new to it as usual mrpontiac will be confirmed as a sock and his edits will be removed sad that you abuse wikipedia policys by siding with banned users you are well aware of as being banned Xero675 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I know it's you. I don't know if whatever you're saying is true. But you're still not allowed to edit. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
And I know your helping Mrpontiac I promise to you by monday this issue will be resolved and once again you would of been helping a banned user once nirvana gets to read my message he will deal with your sock chum thisisparta cheers Xero675 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
An administrator has gone ahead and reverted your edits including the ones you made on Nirvana's talk page. Once again, I know who you are and have consistently explained to you about banning policies. You know the drill, the pages are gonna get protected, your account blocked. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Elockid congratulations your banned chum mrpontiac1 and most of his edits have been removed thanks for your interference ;-) 86.158.177.150 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
So have yours with your other socks. :) Do you know who blocked them, both yours and MrPontiac? Yes it was YellowMonkey. So much for your bias. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL the bias will never end unless a non indian admin deals with this case Monkey may have blocked Mrpontiac and his socks but HE WILL NEVER REMOVE PONTIACS EDITS I will have to rely on non indian users such as nirvana888 and Nsaum to remove mrpontiac1 as I find it pretty impossible that monkey can bring himself to remove mrpontiacs edits because there both indians no harm in stating reality p.s I said most of Mrpontiacs edits were removed not all :-( 86.158.177.150 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Infact so strong is this indian sock nexus that spacemanspiff also refrained from removing Mrpontiacs1 edits even now when its confirmed hes a banned user spacemanspiff also said he would remove mrpontiacs1 edits on the talk page of my other account i made to stop mrpontiac1 however I dont think keeping to the guidelines is what indian admins really do anyways good day 86.158.177.150 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the smart thing to do to refrain from reverting because he (Spaceman) and I have little or no information on him. I don't know how you cannot comprehend that. It would be foolish of us to revert a user stating that they are banned even though we have insufficient knowledge on him. We can't revert a sock without having sufficient knowledge about them. This is also the case of Barek and other users. But we have sufficient knowledge about you and have continuously reverted which is enough to revert your edits. Nirvana and Nsaum know MrPontiac the most and as such are the users who revert and report him. It's best to report them to Nirvana and Nsaum rather than you reverting them because you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia. You also can't depend on other users who have little information on them to revert because like I said, this isn't how it works. Taking the matter in your own hands isn't going to help because according to the banning policy, any user can revert your edits if it has been identified that you have been editing. If you really wanted to help and revert banned users, following the advice that AdjustShift gave several months back is the best thing to do instead of engaging in more sockpuppetry. Please also respond to my message on User talk:Flashingligjhets. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You keep regurgitating the same line about how you dont know about Mrpontiac1 even when there is now a BANNED TAG on his userpage seems to me your being discussed and are in a bit of trouble for reverting so there goes your "It's the smart thing to do to refrain from reverting" theory anyways I wont let your ignorance and stupidity help Mrpontiac1 out I will hit fast and hard wherever indian pov pushers are out to push there trash good luck ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.177.150 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just though I'd comment if that's OK since I've dealt with Mrpontaic1 before and Nangparbat has left alerted to me on my talk page to this new activity. Elockid is from what I have seen is an editor committed to fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry as my watchlist regularly reveals his useful reverts. :) He is right in saying that he was not familiar with Mrpontaic1 (just as I was not familiar with Nangparbat) but is familiar with Nangparbat and thus reverted his reverts. Having said this, I'm sure now Elockid is now familiar with MrPontiac quackpuppetry as it is pretty easy to identify his his tendentious and disruptive edits regarding India/Pakistan. Nangparbat, as I've stated on my talk page, I think the best course of action is not to reflexively revert future cases of Mrpontiac because as Elockid reminds you are not supposed to edit. Instead, you could help by reporting specific edits to Nsaum75, Elockid, or myself and I'm sure he will be reverted in due time. Elockid, If I am contradicting you, feel free to correct me. Now that this case is resolved, I hope future conversations can been done in a less heated manner. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To NP. The banned tag has nothing to do with it. It's the behavioral evidence. Remember, you've also stated that you will not create socks unless MrPontiac's socks are blocked. So I better not be seeing socks like Errormeek (talk · contribs) again and the time here on Wikipedia should be spent reporting. You're wasting you're time trying to as you say "remove Indian trash" because it will get reverted and the article indefinitely semi-protected with socks like Errormeek. So might as well just stop, it hasn't been working. You're also preventing new editors who might want to edit from editing because we have to protect the pages you edit due to your history. Please give that into consideration. Most of the main articles you've been editing are protected and more are to come if you keep up the actions you have been doing.
MrPontiac articles are currently not on my watchlist. If you guys need a hand, I'll be glad to offer up some help. If so, please list some of the articles you want to watchlist. Nirvana, thank you for the comment. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Mrpontiac's articles are too numerous to list but invariably involve India and Pakistan and often other related countries such as China and the United States. Interests include among others Indian/Pakistani food, society, politics, foreign relations, wars, military, cinema-related articles. I appreciate your help and I'm Nsaum does as well. If you take a look at a few of his more notable socks you notice a peculiar MO and frequented articles. Some IPs are listed here [1] particularly 115.252.*.* Hope this helps. Thanks again Nirvana888 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Will look into greater detail. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, he's a very prolific/abusive editor as you can see by the number of IPs I've just tagged just now and I probably only scratched the surface. That is on top of his 67 confirmed sock accounts. I'll have a look at the Nangparbat case and see if I can familiarize myself with it. Probably best to follow a policy of WP:RBI Nirvana888 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Mrpontiac again: Qdfgt763547 (talk · contribs). Wouldn't be surprised if there are a cabal of other sock accounts. I think we need another CU. Looks like him and "Nanga Parbat" just can't seem to avoid each other. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably need a CU. Maybe a hard rangeblock might be possible. A CU will need to look into this though. Investigating range based on the tagged socks and SPI. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Look's like User:Alison already found the range. 115.252.32.0/20. We should request a block on this range. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep, a .32.0/20 range would only block a minority of his IP range but is worth it in my books. Maybe someone can calculate a wider range that doesn't impinge on other editors. Anyway, could you file a SPI or alert a CU? Many thanks.Nirvana888 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Filed and added to the queue. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, my editing in Sao Paulo is just a mess. This issue was to be in the Sandbox, but was accidentally placed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.210.232 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Elockid. See WP:AN3#User:Elockid reported by User:Professional Assassin (Result: ). This is quite a confusing case, due to the apparent summoning of editors from the Persian Wikipedia to join in one side of the dispute. I see you've also joined in a related SPI report. I find that the move of List of languages by number of native speakers to a new title looks strange. I am thinking of closing the 3RR case (if I'm the one to do it) with a week of full protection. If you have any other comments on the situation, or any recommended actions, you could add them to the report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I know I always come out as rude with my comments but is the heat of the moment which gets to me and sorry for accusing you of taking sides and supporting banned users no hard feelings I hope I know your just doing your job anyways I hope I can get out of this wikipedia addiction thingy soon because its highly unproductive for me and a waste of time unless offcourse I become a serious editor which is unlikely anyways hope you can forgive and forget and happy new year! 86.158.177.150 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Take care! :) Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
the next time you revert my edits I wont make a fuss of it just hope I can put wikipedia behind me and concentrate on my studies instead my new year resolution which hasnt exactly gone to plan lol p.s these messages are not intended in anyway to gain sympathy 86.158.177.150 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I edited 3 articles to revert Mrpontiac1 edits they are Chicken tikka massala, Border and General officer sorry for making another account but I had to remove his edits I know it was the wrong thing to do could you please look over the articles I have edited and remove Mrpontiac1s edits when he returns I will inform you whenever I make an account and inform you of pontiac when I see him hope you understand thanks Openplain09 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
One last thing I would be greatful if you could discuss this with Nsaum75 and not yellowmonkey as monkey will re add pontiacs original edits for reasons you already know cheers Openplain09 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Nsaum, Nirvana, and I will handle it. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This is my latest account as promised I will tell you whenever I make one. With your permission could I just inform you or Nirvana888 and Nsaum on yours/theres talk page whenever I see Mrpontiac1 or one of his buddys like Dewan so you can protect and remove there edits instead of making accounts and reverting there edits please reply back soon if you think its a good idea Slowjammerz3 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's allowed. You might want to email a CU. Sounds like a good idea though. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry for editing that south asia article I was about to discuss with a user however he didnt come online as you can see I have refrained from editing most articles except that single one anyways I suggest you keep away from wikireader41 his vedic pov pushing is aimed only at pakistanis cheers maybe wikireader is also now consuming cow urine (according to Vedas its a duty of a hindu to drink it at birth upto death) since he may have reformed ;-)86.153.131.180 (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
one more thing I dont know how my ip is associated with the edit on israel-germany relations! I have never taken interest in that topic any ideas? 86.153.131.180 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This should give you and Idea of Wikireader41s motives "please refrain from your islamofascist garbage. the article on BNF has nothing to do with BJP. if you have any constructive ideas you are welcome to add them. insha allah soon pakistan will be 5 countries.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)"

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This is the sort of Saffron garbage he/she comes out with so you can understand that it is only polite that I return the favour to him/her hes also been blocked for pov pushing too much time in the local bjp funded mundir I suppose see also Hindu Taliban :-) 86.153.131.180 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your concern about the Israel-Germany article, it is most likely that your ISP connects people on a proxy, so whoever that person was, was on the same proxy as you. Depending on the ISP, people may share IPs. I can't be of much help, sorry. The articles that Wikireader has been editing now is borderline info for me. But I would also suggest keeping from the insults. Insults don't help in communicating with other people and serves nothing but further escalate the situation. Trust me, it doesn't help. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And trust me Elockid when Wikreader41 has a jab with every comment I must respond to him/her like in his last comment he mentioned Taqiyah he will come back I know in soon to your talk page and write more garbage about something to do with islam and I will have to respond im sorry that wikireader41 found your talk page and messed it up thanks 86.153.131.180 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gracias de nuevo

Ese usuario parece tener una misión de recibir un bloqueo indefinido. Pero ojalá cambie.

Que tengas un muy buen fin de semana. SamEV (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Si. Tambien, tengas un buen fin de semana. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning User:Deepika11

Hi. I think we both sort of warned this user at the same time, so if you don't mind I'm going to remove the duplicate warning and leave it with a level 1 warning and a level 2 warning. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind it at all. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

IMF GDP PPP

Let's update them all then or remove the year 2008. 216.106.61.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

Removing the year 2008 isn't helpful. I think there's an issue with the 2009 estimates listed for the country. Those have been there for a while if I recall correctly even when the article was updated. I would suggest creating a thread on the talk page to update or not and see if anybody else agrees or if someone knows the issue or add the tag {{update}} on the article page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI about user:toutvientapoint

We have similar editing interests, so I felt I should warn you about this user. S/He has vandalized Asia([7][8]) and South Asia ([9], [10]) If you notice his/her vandalism, could you please revert it, thanks

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll help out the best I can. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mrpontiac

Hey, thanks for the very quick reply to my SPI. I just filed it guess you check your watchlist pretty often LOL. Have you come across any other suspect accounts and/or IP addresses? Nirvana888 (talk)

I actually do check my watchlist pretty often. I also added the SPI to queue. Unfortunately, this is the only one that I remember seeing. If I see anything else, I'll add it. If it's clerk approved, the CU should find everything out and cover anything we missed. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A few socks confirmed and a new rangeblock. I created a watchlist a while ago: User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. If you would like to help maintain and update it, it would be very much welcome! Nirvana888 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it might also help to add the list to Mrpontiac's userpage so that people have a clue on what range and where they are located. But I'd be glad to help and maintain the page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

About the problem editor(s) and problem edits

Gracias de nuevo.

They seem to be the same editor to me, too. But even if they're not, both IPs are disruptive.

On a related note, do you think Dominican Republic gets enough non-constructive/vandalistic edits to request semi-protection? I've tended to avoid the technical and administrative sides of WP, so I'm largely ignorant of that. SamEV (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I filed a semi-protection request for the recent activity. Hopefully an admin will protect the page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I also forgot. We have three different IPs now! Though one them looks to be related right away. Looks to be block evasion. Hopefully we can also get a rangeblock since it seems evident that multiple IPs of the same range will be used. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, great. Thanks, dude! SamEV (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Elockid, I suppose you know what the result of the CU was. The user was indef blocked.

Now, does this user 'sound' familiar to you: [11] SamEV (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. If they start to disrupt again, I'll request a semi on the pages they're editing. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I reverted its two edits and put a sock template on IP talk page. SamEV (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's seems to be the only we can do for the meantime. Also keeping an eye on the Kongo language page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I have it watchlisted. SamEV (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Elockid.

Could you explain this to me, please: why wasn't the main IP of that user, 71.196.72.160 blocked, too? SamEV (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the IPs AfroDR seemed to have changed to the 190s and the 71 was less recently used, it would have seemed that they moved on to a new IP. So blocking at the time the 71 IP would seem useless. But that doesn't appear to be the case now. The situation looks like it's going to escalate again, so if they start up, I'll report them probably to ANI or something. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thank you very much. SamEV (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Con amigos como el/ella... SamEV (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you SO much, Elockid, for your help fighting vandalism, in Dominican Republic-related articles especially. SamEV (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar! Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

About HoppingHare

Seems she will never stop disruption in Wikipedia, and she's really really mad at us. (Don't know how I get involved).--JL 09 q?c 08:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he/she is on rampage and I read the messages over at Tagalog Wikipedia. I don't even get it. We're both just doing are jobs. I'm guessing the reason that he/she is mad because he/she thinks that we were both responsible in him/her getting blocked or have had disagreements in the past. Otherwise not much else. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Do either of you know what this page is about? I appear to be being accused of abusing my administrative authority there, and 23Prootie appears to be renewing his/her claims that they are the victim of an Australian conspiracy... Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I just found that Google Translate has a Filipino to English function, and am very bemused to see that that's a RfA! I've got no idea what this editor's behavior is on that Wikipedia, but he's permanently blocked here... Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I was a little concerned when I saw that page. I usually don't wish for an unsuccessful RfA, but I have to make an exception. There's probably going to be admin abuse if he ever gets to be an admin. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/HomerHomerHomerHomer

Isn't a checkuser like a whois... it would allow an Admin to make an IP based ban, since this user is making multiple user accounts an account creation ban on the originating IP might be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R12056 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts are both blocked under autoblock setting which means that any IPs they have been using should have been blocked also. They're only two accounts listed and it might be a little difficult to find an IP range just working with two socks. If there are more socks in the future coming up in the future, then requesting for CU to block an IP range would be appropriate. But usually in cases where behavioral evidence is clear like in Homer's case, CU is not necessary to show that they related to each other. Hope that helps. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 03:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my edit

I actually tried to undo that edit. I am a schoolchild and we are doing a project about Burma. Some idiot vandalized the page. There's a lot of people on the Burma page right now. Please keep in mind there may be up to 50 people using this account at once before template warnings. --118.210.174.200 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It explains the 2nd edit. Some IPs are shared and I'm aware of that. See the italicized text on your talk. Unfortunately, I cannot get the name of the ISP or school that you're editing, so I can't add a tag that the IP is shared. There might be more messages from other users if someone else vandalizes. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
East Para Primary School --118.210.174.200 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Shared IP tag added. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of cities by GDP

Some user keeps removing data without explanation. I've reverted him a couple of times, but I don't know if he removes it because the data's bad or what. I just saw in the page history that you haven't edited there in weeks, but I'm not familiar with the article, so I still thought I'd ask you. Here's the diff: [12]. SamEV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I've left a note on the user's talk page. If they don't respond within a week, I'll readd the bit of information. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suffolkbeer

Just a quick question - this case should be listed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eurobeerguide. However, I'm not sure how this is done. Is it a pagemove or a cut/paste move? Thanks! TNXMan 16:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just merged Suffolkbeer to Eurobeerguide. Usually it's just a copy/paste move over to the original report with a note saying that the new report is moved to the old one. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much! I'll note that for future cases. TNXMan 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

23prootie's God

Thanks for letting me know. I was rather sceptical, hence my non committal response on their wall - I didn't have time to look into it at the time. Not totally sure why they asked me specifically, but there you go... Thanks for getting it sorted out. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc

Tarc removed his name from SPI. This is the wrong thing to do. A UT professor (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be a little more specific. Which SPI? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter, but I just noticed the activities of the brand new A UT professor (talk · contribs). They are almost certainly the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver where they are trying to add Tarc (an editor in good standing) to make some sort of point. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to the page. Added a comment on the SPI. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI case - Gaydenver

Hello Elockid, it seems that the 'new user' A UT professor has made a lot of edits on the SPI page of Gaydenver. The user added some sections to the 'Evidence submitted by DD2K' section, but I moved it to the 'Comments by accused parties' section. I hope that was ok. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftan spi

Got half way thru, realised that C.Fred had already got the beggar. Thanks for tidy up - you beat me to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Also tagged sock and case handled. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

219.64.71.76

219.64.71.76 (talk · contribs) is still unblocked and rampaging. Woogee (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

They're blocked now. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Was watching this issue from Huggle. What do you mean by "they"? Sock puppet?--Ecstacy Xtcy3 04:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
They meaning either a coordinated attack by several people or just some vandal IP hopping. Could be a sockpuppet. Looking into it now. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

New Section

I am not vandalizing! I have the publication by my side, and I am reading from the very text. What proof do I need to provide, inorder to satisfy you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19joseph91 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to explain yourself?

Do you own the book by Dr. Richard Lynn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19joseph91 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This and this does looks like you're just making up numbers. It's not an obvious typo either. If you truly do have a source and you've read the article and the sources, then you'll see that this is an article is based on a Lynn's book, not any other sources.
I don't own the book, but a record of the statistics from the book are kept online here which doesn't support what you're saying. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Information is incorrect, that page does not correspond with my edition of the book. Could you provide your email address? I will scan you an image directly from the publication, of both the cover, and section in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19joseph91 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The book can also be found here, pg 100-103. This is the book used in the article and the primary source and the estimates . What edition book do you have and year? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IQ and the wealth of nations By Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19joseph91 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


There aren't any references online. What is the standard protocol for the use of paper resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19joseph91 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will retract the vandalism warnings for now until I can get further information. I haven't found any indication of that edition ever published. I found a 2006 edition with the same authors but with a different title. For paper resources, it's the same as other resources except but adding other information such as the ISBN number, volume, date, etc. is highly recommended to determine its verifiability. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 14:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

help !

a user has vandalized this page : List of cities proper by population ! Crazyant2 (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Not really vandalism though but I reverted per my edit summary on that page. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock?

Hi Elockid. I just reverted this edit by an SPA. Might it be another sock? Favonian (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It probably is. Will keep an eye on them. Elockid (Talk) 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Thanks for organizing those pages properly Elockid. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's part of what I do. Elockid (Talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your report at WP:ABUSE

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 71.196.72.160. We wanted to let you know that the case for the report you filed for 71.196.72.160 has been closed. Thank you again for filing and alerting us of this IP's abusive behavior. Avicennasis @ 07:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of List of Asian countries by population

I agree this page needs some work. I left a comment about countries that are partially/mostly in Asia and in another continent. I would also like to work on this list. Would you object to noting such countries with a * noting that they are countries on both continents? Ideally, we could try to find the population in the Asiatic portion only and note it. I may look into some of them on Friday. Also, the intro notes Cyprus not included for cultural reasons. That is a poor reason for not including it. As you are also interested in this list, I would like to get your feedback on these issues before making edits. Thanks.ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning to me about this article. I completely forgot to update and work on it. I don't object at all. I think it's a good idea. The inclusion/exclusion on the article is also POV. We should try and avoid that. Finding the Asiatic portion population only might present a challenge. I haven't found any sources that has done so. The closest thing I can come up with is to add the populations of smaller administrative units such as a province that are in the Asiatic portion. But they could be in different continents as well. Elockid (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello, Elockid. I think it's time you give an RfA a go. I'd be happy to nominate you, if you'd like. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been considering it and I wouldn't mind if you nominated me. If you'd be willing to do it, that would be greatly appreciated. Elockid (Talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I've seen of your work at SPI, you'd make a good admin. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NSD and Nick. Elockid (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You need to answer Q1-3 ASAP before it derails this endeavor before it even gets off the ground. See my discussion section comment at RfA page. Tan | 39 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And although it's optional, you might want to create the opt-in page for X!'s edit counter, as this is usually where stats are retrieved from and posted on the talk page. Good luck! Airplaneman ✈ 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both for the advice and heads up. Elockid (Talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across Elockid while new page patrolling. lol :) I wish I had that kind of support, Airplaneman ✈ 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You mind want to proof read answer3. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seoul

Please don't do that again. The templates are created to consolidate article space and make for easier editing. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought the template was already in there before when I reverted Rayesworied. Elockid (Talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to your opinion on an SPI case

What would be your call on this case? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toothie3 Auntie E. (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some connection between the accounts. I'm a little hesitant to endorse per the last investigation with the check coming up as inconclusive. From what I've experience, when sockpuppeteers find something to help conceal themselves, they'll stick with it, so it might come up as inconclusive. Endorsing wouldn't be bad though and it wouldn't be bad to give it one last try in my opinion. But if it comes up as inconclusive, then I'd probably decline the next cases as this will likely be the case every time or most of the time in the future. Elockid (Talk) 03:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, CU is out. What about behavioral evidence? Auntie E. (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the article topics and articles edited, I would say Tripsi looks to be a continuation of Beyruthi. Trendstay and Amnisa look to be more closely related to Toothie. But, I'd like Nableezy to expand on what he meant by how they format their comments as I don't see anything that sticks out right away. Elockid (Talk) 03:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Sock

Can you have a look at User:Goldentower? Looks to me after a quick look to be a new duck sock of User:Softjuice/User:Tnaniua. Would be great if you could investigate as you are more familiar with his MO. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a duck especially when comparing it to another suspected sock of theirs, Softjuice (talk · contribs). Starting an SPI. Elockid (Talk) 17:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
SPI started. Elockid (Talk) 18:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
They've been blocked and tagged. Also, thanks for the vote. Elockid (Talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your Welcome message

Thank you for your message but it's quite a while that I'm a member in Wikipedia and even longer before being an active member, I've visited Wikipedia pretty often. (at least once a day.)--Arash Eb (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you needed a welcoming especially for a constructive editor like yourself. Better late than never. Right? Elockid (Talk) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi there! Thanks for your clarification of your answer to Question 9. Whilst I didn't write it, I think that the point the question is driving at is that when you're an admin (and that seems to be the way it's going), you'll get reports at AIV where a user or IP has been warned three times and then stopped vandalising. Such a report would be generally declined at AIV, because consensus is to recieve 4 warnings. However, if there were three warnings, and the last warning received was a level 4 (eg {{uw-vandalism4}}), then a block would be in order. Clearly you make valid points about assessing the severity of the vandalism, whether it's a Jarxle, Hagger, obscene BLP violation, block evasion etc, and I wouldn't say that such vandals require 4 warnings, I've certainly blocked on sight (I've even done one today).

I hope that you understand why, even with your current clarification, I can't quite support, and will remain neutral. Obviously if you make a further answer to your clarification, I'll certainly reconsider with the aim of moving to support. If not, then I hope you can be satisfied with my moral support because this issue is the only thing that means I can't support. I don't think my support or otherwise will make any difference, the RfA is going pretty well! GedUK  09:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This diff which just happened, shows the point I'm trying to make! GedUK  10:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern and I appreciate it. I think I know what you're getting at. I've seen other admins put the templates for "insufficiently warned", "stale", "has not edited since final warning", "edits are not vandalism" for some reports. I'll definitely take this into thought and consideration when looking at a report at AIV. Elockid (Talk) 10:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

May I request you to answer optional questions on your RfA?

Hi Elockid. May I request you to answer optional questions on your RfA? Do please note that they are optional and you may refuse to answer them. However, your answering of those questions would go a long way in convincing me whether you will be an able administrator (and therefore, lead to changing my vote from the 'strong oppose' that I have expressed). But I have to mention out here that those questions in no way reflect my appreciation of your work being done on the project. You are an extremely valuable addition to the project. I do hope to interact with you much more in the future. With best regards and wishes. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 06:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Elockid. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elockid#Oppose.
Message added 18:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 18:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!!

This user has his own mop.

Beat the 'crat congrats. Dlohcierekim 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR •
IRC admin channel (#wikipedia-en-admins connect)
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the congrats guys! Also, I'd like to give special thanks to both Dloh and NSD for being so supportive. Elockid (Talk) 17:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, Elockid. Now go pwn those sockpuppets! NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Will do! Elockid (Talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You earned it. Dlohcierekim 17:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Also thanks for updating the icon on my userpage. Elockid (Talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Congrats. you deserved this. I think nangparbat will soon be history ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully. If he does show up, just send me a memo. Elockid (Talk) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done Elockid! Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Spitfire! Elockid (Talk) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Elockid (Talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Well done! I know I didn't support in the end, but I'm confident in you, especially if you take a breath before pressing the block button at AIV :) If yuo've any questions, feel free to hit me up! GedUK  19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! If I need anything, I'll be sending a memo your way then. Elockid (Talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"Ugh, a non-admin's declining reports on AIV.... oh wait!" Congrats Elockid, well deserved. ;) ~ mazca talk 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mazca! Elockid (Talk) 19:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Congrats, I was impressed with how you handled yourself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for both the congrats and the support! Elockid (Talk) 02:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Good job and congrats! I think you handled yourself very well during the discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats! Elockid (Talk) 12:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Case of vandalism and sock-puppetry

hi, i would like to inform for about ongoing vandalism by a new user Arjunr240576 who was blocked yesterday for at-least 24 hours. He has come up with another id Arjunr576. He is continually vandalizing article Madrassi despite several warnings. His previous edits are this, this and now with new id this.

please have a look. thanks --Onef9day (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:SpacemanSpiff has blocked them. GedUK  09:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Ged. Onef9day, if they come back, please report to me, Spaceman or the appropriate board. Elockid (Talk) 10:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, yes User:SpacemanSpiff has already taken action. sure i'll report about it. Thanks for your service on Wikipedia. cheers! --Onef9day (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

23prootie

About this guy → Sukarnobhumibol (talk · contribs) ←, he got so worked up after reading my statement here, but he obviously didn't read between the lines before jumping to conclusion. However, I wish to state that the reason why I made that comment was because of a hunch after going through his edit history, that's why I said ""Pardon me if I got it wrong" in that statement. And the reason why I'm doing this here is to inform another Admin about this should it blows out of proportion. Note also that he has made a complaint at the discussion page of Nick-D (talk · contribs). Thanks and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Sukarnobhumibol is a sock right now. Reasons include is that whatever is on the userpage matches accurately to 23prootie's behavior. 23prootie doesn't speak German and he's a native speaker of Filipino. There's also some articles I haven't seen proot edit like with Vietnamese related articles. No edits to DYK yet. 23prootie usually edits there pretty quickly if he's on an account. But I'll keep an eye out just in case. Just so you know, I have a good feeling 23prootie has moved to IP editing through open proxies. Just blocked at least 10 of them yesterday. This is probably what you might run into soon. Elockid (Talk) 21:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job!

Thanks for whacking that pesky vandal! I hope you didn't take my oppose in your RfA personally. All things considered, I'm sure you'll do a good job! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Also, I didn't take the oppose personally. I know you're just looking for the best interest of the project. Elockid (Talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jnonjkknjkn

Thanks for the block of them and the other user, for the record, the sockmaster is validbanks 34 (talk · contribs). I have a report at SPI, hoping a checkuser can actually block the underlying IP this time.--Terrillja talk 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm keeping an eye out right now. Do you want your talk page to be semi protected in the meanwhile? Elockid (Talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather leave it unprotected, It really doesn't matter to me too much if they direct their vandalism to my talkpage and another admin has already protected the only other page that they were vandalizing. Thanks for the offer, though!--Terrillja talk 23:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. If you do change your mind, feel free to send me a message. Elockid (Talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, they keep throwing reverts at us. Luckily I have the mass rollback tool in my vector.js, which makes situations like this easier. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
They're just wasting their time. We can easily nuke out any new socks that comes by. I'm hopping a CU can come quick though. This is getting out of hand. Elockid (Talk) 02:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:Validbanks 34. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll comment there. Elockid (Talk) 03:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec x2) re this, I'd agree, since any edits are subject to instant reversion regardless of official status, but I guess doing it the procedural way through ANI is the "right" way to go. Perhaps it will catch the attention of a CU there as well.--Terrillja talk 03:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There's also AN to get a de facto ban. I'm pretty sure no admin would unblock him or any of their socks. Elockid (Talk) 03:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Doctorfacts

  • I’m sorry to bother you, but I thought I should let somebody know, user Doctorfacts keeps adding and taking off info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page

[13] [14]

He/she states that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There’s no source or episode to prove that. The user also goes on to remove info that says otherwise that Duke kissed Cover Girl in episode Cobra Claws Are Coming to Town or what happen in episode MASS Device and gives no reasons to any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there 76.192.159.35 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am unfamiliar with articles Doctorfacts is editing so there's not much what I can do. Please consider going to WP:ANI. Elockid (Talk) 11:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:Odayscoach80

The user above just email bombed me. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry that took so long. Elockid (Talk) 15:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

I don't know if you watch the show or not, but I need your help because Active Banana (talk · contribs) is very forceful with his edits on the article I mentioned in the section title. He has been removing the profiles of the show's participants because he said they're either unsourced or more like analysis to him (I think he's from outside the Philippines, which I think can justify for his actions). Will you deal with him for me? I don't want to argue with him. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been watching the show as I'm outside of the Philippines. Perhaps you could try asking for input on Tamabayan Philippines. I'm sorry I can't be of much more help. Elockid (Talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

On your recent successful RfA. It appears, however, that you have already attracted "a secret admirer," which I promptly sent on their way.—DoRD (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats and the heads up. Elockid (Talk) 02:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for de-serafining my talk page! Varsovian (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Elockid (Talk) 10:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately he seems to be back: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/begasnui Varsovian (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. I don't know if you know this but, Future Perfect at Sunrise also handles Serafin socks, just in case it gets out of hand if I'm not here. Elockid (Talk) 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:Bsmileroad67

The user above just email bombed me. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Elockid (Talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ao333

Hello,

I noticed you blocked user Ao333 for sockpuppetry but then reversed the block because there was a lack of hard evidence. I recently requested a Sockpuppet investigation into the activites of By78 who has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia due to vandalism, disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. The Checkuser data revealed that Ao333 and Shen333 are the same user. The SPI also revealed that user Soupysoap is a sockpuppet for By78. More information on the investigation is located here

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ao333 already revealed that he was Shen333 in his talk page before the CU results. It indicates that this is more of an alternate account. I'm guessing that one is for public and the other is for private use. CU doesn't link those two accounts to By78. From what I can tell, the main difference is that Ao333 edits almost exclusively to articles relating to aircraft while the scope of By78 and Soupysoup is much larger. So, I'm not seeing much relation between By78 and Ao333. Elockid (Talk) 10:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

MrPontiac

Hey! Good old MrPontiac seems to have returned right after the softblock expired. He's already made over 100 edits by now. To just list a few IPs (there are dozens) see User:115.252.40.160, User:115.252.32.246, User:115.252.33.141, etc. Might also want to check the additional sleeper accounts if the past repeats itself. Perhaps we need a long-term softblock since it appears to be a continuous pattern of abuse. What do you think? Nirvana888 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we need another rangeblock and sleeper check. So, investigation file. Elockid (Talk) 23:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks pal. I'll see if I can add to the investigation. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Anytime. :) Elockid (Talk) 23:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Guatemala

I recently added some info. to the page on Guatemala under Etymology. It seems like the change was reversed by you. Here are my changes: The word Guatemala derives from Sanskrit (Hindu) word "Guadhaamala", meaning Guha (Cosmic Intelligence) + Dha (Serpentine) + Amala (Umbilical Cord), the Sacred Umbilical Cord Linking Western Asia and India. However, alternative theories also exist.

Here is the reference: http://mondovista.com/ancientturksx.html

You're welcome to re-add the edit with the source you know. But this seems controversial, so I recommend asking some other input on the talk page. Elockid (Talk) 02:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AlgeriaLove back to his old tricks

Please see here I suppose a more serious block is necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Gave a final warning to them. One more revert and I'll block them for a longer period of time for repeated behavior. Elockid (Talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:Roiwaerpawoerphsdfwerfewwaabbgfhjhg

The above person sent me an email with random text. I think this is a different person than the accounts above because he didn't email bomb me. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Rodhullandemu already took care of it. Elockid (Talk) 00:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remove email access from User:Fgoodslarge71

Yes, ScienceGolfFanatic got me again. Could you also check through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic/Archive and email block all of the sockpuppet accounts mentioned in the SPI that aren't already email blocked? Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Remaining socks reblocked with email disabled. If I missed any, just list them here. Elockid (Talk) 22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

douglas coe editing

Hello, Having done considerable reading over the months on the above personality and having read through portions of ICL organizational archives and the commentaries by figures who have been spiritually helped by him, I have therefore written in Wiki some of the gleaned information with appropriate footnotes. It rather would seem that this is a man about whom more could be conveyed: the scope and charcter of the person and his contributions to the American people and to the international society of cultures, over the period of fifty years. Apparently there is a strong animosty towards Coe, primarily by one recent biographer - I fail to see Douglas Coe as a mystical, dark figure of America, as I have read much of the creative and affirming contributions from his youth work, counseling, and morale assistance to developing democracies. His endeavors are well published and commented on in the biographies of assorted public figures. I would like to continue to have Wiki edit privileges, lately removed by one "Uncle Dick". Cordially, IvanIvananderson (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the subject. But specifically on that page, you've been reverted by two editors, so there's a dispute in which you need to gain consensus to approve the edit you were doing. Might I recommend the talk page for that article. This is the same for The Fellowship (Christian organization) where you were editing tendentiously which is the main reason for the block. When there are multiple editors reverting you, that is a good sign to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. The point of the whole matter is that you need to obtain consensus for your edits. Hope that helps. Elockid (Talk) 16:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DudeManManManMan blah blah blah

Thanks for defending my user page against whoever that was. He did it overnight as I slept, so I wasn't able to do anything. Also, thanks for stopping him from terrorizing the Loeb's (department store) article. There's a discussion on the talk page in which I believe the owner of the store wants the article removed. My guess is the owner has turned into a 4-year old girl over this haha. I don't know what else can be said about the situation, but your input on the talk page is welcome. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. Elockid (Talk) 19:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Zipporah

Hi, Elockid!

Recently, someone added this image to Zipporah (history). Then User:Salaamshalom removed it, time and again, claiming it is 'completely irrelevant', on account of the fact that the image is not solely about Zipporah but about her sisters, too. My argument was and is that the sisters are mentioned plenty in the article!

He even filed an edit warring complaint against me; here it is in its final form before he removed it, [15]. He removed it because another editor added a different image ([16]). Both I and Salaamshalom think the new image is fine.

But before I even logged on [and before I knew that he'd removed the report] I decided to restore the previous image, and I did, as at least a secondary image ([17]). Because there was no resolution at AN3, it's possible that Salaamshalom will again remove it.

Would you watch the page for a while, just in case, please? (Of course, if you think I'm in the wrong here, let me know.) Thanks. SamEV (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) [modified 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)]

I've protected the page for short time. Hopefully a discussion can start a consensus can be reached within that time period. Also have the page watchlisted. Elockid (Talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
All right. I'm perfectly willing to discuss. SamEV (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that SamEV result to things like this. Elockid I do not know how much research you did on issue before you locked page, but the person who came to you is the person who caused an editor war and 2 other editors have reverted his edits so it is not just me as he saying, watch the page if you like, just no the details. This is a link of the complaint i filed against him for the edit war and image he posted up, i removed it from the admin notice board because an admin stepped in an added a more fitting image. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=359006857

He asked you to block the page ,so know one will challenge his edits. Not because of an edit war as you said because if you look at edits history you will see who is the cause. I just wanted you to be informed. Salaamshalom (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The dispute looks to be mainly between you two. The other editor in question is Yosoy66 (talk · contribs) which I have suspicions of being a sockpuppet due to the account being created at the time of the dispute and quickly joining the dispute. In such cases, a checkuser may be able to identify whether or not that account is connected to a suspected sockmaster or any other related accounts. Elockid (Talk) 22:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That's right. There were no "two editors" who reverted me; there was only one, Yosoy66, and I suspected it of being Salaamshalom's sock, as I stated in the edit summary when I reverted it.
AFAIK, the user (User:Valente Quintero Castro) who added the new image is not an admin.
And no, I did not ask Elockid to protect the page. I asked him to watch it, but in his judgment protection was called for. It happens to us all that a page is protected in the wrong version.
Also, another problem with user Salaamshalom (besides his untruthfulness, that is) is his insistence on removing citation requests. SamEV (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, if another admin were to handle the report at AN3 that Salaamshalom submitted, the result would be both editors blocked and to a much lesser extent, page fully protected at the last version or the wrong version. This can apply to any patrolling admin looking at the situation. I chose to protect the page since both of you guys are basically the only ones contributing to that article and I don't think anyone wants to get blocked. Elockid (Talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Both blocked? Well, needless to say, I find your course of action to be much more fair! SamEV (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup. In cases where a dispute between two editors have been going on for days where no discussion has taken place which it looks like here, the person who is being reported as well as the filer are blocked for at least 24 hours or more depending on the severity of the situation. Elockid (Talk) 23:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did make the first effort at discussion, by contacting him on his talk page. Look how many days passed before he finally answered: [18]. His response to my message was to revert blindly, again and again, and his reverts included other changes I'd made. Since he wasn't discussing, I felt no need to just disengage and let him have his version. SamEV (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sam, a word of advice if this happens again is to report the incident at ANI explaining the situation. Elockid (Talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then do this checkuser thing, I have been editing on page for over a year I do not need other "person" to edit for me. Also the admin who stepped in I think valente was his name reverted his edit as well. Look at the edit history. It began when he started an edit war over a word in hebrew (my native language) even though he didn't know the meaning himself, but I didn't report it. I just reported the img. situation. I know the only reason that he contacted you was so nobody can challege his edit and that is the fact. When I was the img was ok I removed the complaint I filed, i have no interest in going back and forth with SamEv who by the way has been blocked 2 times for edit warring, its foolish. Obviouly the admins agreed with me if not they would have kept his image, but they didn't.They changed it and he contacted you because he wanted to bring it back as he stated above. I could have asked for the page to be block then and I honestly think it would have be granted to me, but that was not me intention this is wikepdia any one can help improve a page. Aswell to be not mistaking I did not contact you to unblock the page. If you feel that is what you must do the fine, I just wanted you to know the details why he was using you to block it. SamEV make edits based on probablity and implication he does not have anything to support his claims or challege what is written in the article so when you do around making edits like that then of course someone will challege you. Just as I did on the notice board but he just dance arounf the topic. any I have no issue with you I just wanted you to know why he contacted you that is all. again do checkuser if you want. that is all i have to say Salaamshalom (talk)

I'm not a checkuser, so I can't check the accounts. A checkuser may check an account if credible evidence is found that potentially links an account to another when a sockpuppet investigation is filed. Sam may request a checkuser to investigate the relation between you Yosoy66, but unfortunately, per checkuser policy, checkuser cannot be used to prove you innocent.
Based on the article history, the only admin who has edited that page within the past month is me and that's just protecting the page and adding the appropriate template to the page. Do you have links showing approval or disapproval from other admins? In a content dispute, the last version to be edited is protected. So it doesn't matter who asked the page to be locked because it is protected at the most current version. There are exceptions, but this doesn't fall on any of them. Elockid (Talk) 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Salaamshalom, you edit warred on the issue of the Hebrew word kushim by removing the citation request, which (just like the image) was added by another user ([19]), not me. It was completely reasonable of me to restore the tag. In each case, it could be said that there were two users for keeping what you were deleting: the users who added it, and me.
I contacted Elockid because AN3 had been tried and they took no action in the time the report was up. It's as simple as that, Salaamshalom. SamEV (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
AN3 is really slow. By the time action took place, the situation could have escalated with consequences that could be worse than just a page protection. Elockid (Talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You know what? I thought about being proactive and contacting you after the first three reverts or so that he made. But I didn't want to impose and, also, I felt you might be too busy acclimating yourself to your new role of admin. So I decided to try AN3, but then I procrastinated like crazy and he filed first! Ah, me. SamEV (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotta love procrastination. Elockid (Talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elockid/Archive_3&oldid=1143539944"