User talk:HangingCurve/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Thanks

As someone who has often been at the receiving end of his despicable tirades, thanks for the recent action you took concerning user:Druid.raul. I doubt he would ever be chastised enough to behave civilly on a consistent basis. Jasepl (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

About Epycwin

I think you should simply unblock. Its been four days since you asked GWH to comment on the block and he has not. The block was made based on a spurious and slanderous argument that his edit were anti-Semitic. They are not. no evidence was presented to suggest they were. The two diffs presented by Daniel Case are not evidence of disruption. If he was so disruptive, there would have been talk messages on his page from other editors asking him to modify his behaviour. The block is a travesty and should immediately be lifted. His reputation has been tarnished and he deserves an apology for the community for biting him so badly when he's new here. Tiamut^talk 13:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The ANI thread was archived some hours after you commented, expressing your willingness to unblock Epycwin, if there were no objections. Should we relist it? Or should you just go ahead with the unblock? I understood from GWH's comments that he would not overturn an unblock (simply that he would not unblock himself due to his mind being made up). Do you want to check with him again before unblocking? I think something should be done. Its been a week now and this editor has been punished enough. Tiamut^talk 13:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the fair (and brave) thing to do. I hope he's had some time to become more familiar with our editing policies and guidelines and doesn't fall into a breach of them again in the future. Tiamut^talk 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:79.45.156.184

Hi! Please have a look at this diff. Could you help? Thank you!--93.45.140.85 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nurbandma

Hi. User:Nurbandma seems to be identical with User:Hazaraboys/User:Hazaraboyz whom you had blocked. He may be trying to evade his block. The account registered only one day after the block and his edits and field of interest are almost identical with those of the other user. Regards. Tajik (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

languages

Sorry to bother you once again, but User:Nedim_Ardoğa is adding a bunch of irrelevant additions to various articles. Most of the time, he is adding the Turkish names/expressions to the lead of the respective articles, and most of the time, it's totally irrelevant. I have already tried to explain it to him here. This is the English Wikipedia and not the Turkish version of it. Turkish names are only relevant in articles associated with Turkish people or Turkey. But he is also adding the Turkish names to various other articles (like here or here). He seems to misunderstand the relation between Turkic languages (= language family) and Turkish language. It's like adding the German or Italian names to all kinds of articles related to Indo-European languages or peoples. He is also creating new Turkish lemmas (like here) and redirects them. I think an admin should explain to him that this is not the common Wiki policy. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

LaCenterra_at_Cinco_Ranch

After counseling LaCenterra_at_Cinco_Ranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest, I have created a new account for him swannanoaten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fester Smith‎

Would you care to comment on the current CheckUser sock case? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The sock has requested to be unblocked [1] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Interpride

Um, huh? I'm not seeing this user entering anything false, or even unencyclopedic. Perhaps a little more detail than is needed but is that actually wrong? That massive template suggests it was but I'm not convinced what policy what actually violated - the username? If they did all these edits under a different name they would all seem to be fine. Could you revisit this? -- Banjeboi 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for more eyes on this situation here -- Banjeboi 17:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

well done

just a random note to congratulate you for keeping the values wherever you are! God bless you. Prince Waters (talk page) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoojatahojahojahooo!

You might like to review and comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bitte ohne Seawolf!. I notice you've blocked several of the accounts I mentioned in my report. Hoojata appears to be one of the few users on the list who is not already blocked. Tckma (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim Donaghy

Thanks for your addition to Tim Donaghy. Can you provide a source for that fact? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a biography of a living person, I've commented out the fact for now—we have to tread carefully with unsourced info regarding living people. When you get the time to add a reliable source for that statement, feel free to reinstate it. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that and all of your other helpful edits. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I saw you catch User:Hazaraboyz for using multiple sockpuppets, but can you also check User:Inuit18 who is definately a sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. He's not suppose to be editing Wikipedia, notice that Inuit18 and Anoshirawan both decorate their user pages the same way[2], both users are concentrating on the same area. He is only editing ethnics, race or sometimes religion in articles associated with Afghanistan. Usually removing Pashtun, Pashto, Afghan, and replacing it with Tajik, Persian, Shia, etc. A simple checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations will confirm this. You can also tell they are the same person by the similarity of the previous unblock requests made. [3], [4] I have no idea how to file a report.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.10.147 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sugarlover101

Just an FYI that this user has been re-blocked due to persistent (c) violations after being unblocked. Skier Dude (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Your user page states you are open to recall. What is the procedure you use? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that you asked, Blueboy could create near impossible criteria. Essentially, it should be improper behavior as confirmed by 5 users or so. If nothing improper was done, then he should be ok. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking care of the AIV report. Essentially, you removed the report of 2 IP vandals with a 100% vandalism report but thank you for leaving a reason (vandalism is 3 weeks old). I wasn't sure so I asked for an explanation of the correct thing to do. You didn't write to me but I tracked down the reason by reading your edit summary.

Did you do something wrong causing someone to want your recall? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thick .. reallly thick ..

Some spammers have a thick head. It is almost enjoyable ...

Me: I noticed 173.169.149.127, already two blocks for spamming a blogspot, so I blocked it for 3 months.

You: 71.98.198.38 .. one year for the blogspot

Me: I decided to blacklist ...

Curiously, those 2 IPs are miles apart, but both used by one and the same spammer for months. Do you have any clue how to detect Open Proxies or similar stuff? Regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Late thank you

I don't think I thanked you before for unblocking me, so....here I am. Thanks.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking. Much appreciated! 74.14.75.8 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

*trout*

Never, ever, ever block an IP address for five years and disable talkpage access. If you want to you can semi the talkpage for a month or something, but IP addresses can change alot over five years and legit users need a way to appeal the block. Also five years is overkill for a proxy that you haven't even bothered to write the port number in the block log. 1 or 2 years tops. --Chris 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Friedgen

I noticed you recently edited this article. There's a debate simmering on the Ralph Friedgen that may interest you. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lepercon

Blueboy, Lepercon sent me an email requesting to be unblocked. I've reviewed the situation, and it appears he's been blocked since July. Seems like an awfully long time for a "suspected" sockpuppeteer, especially since he was a first-time and once-only offender. Can you offer me an explanation as to why I should not unblock his account? I am hesitant to take action at the moment, since I have not yet undergone admin training due to a hectic schedule this semester.

Thanks, Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

question

Was that last comment/warning over the line? "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pizza Hut, you will be blocked from editing. Seek psychological help. A8UDI 8:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)"? Thnks. I feel like I made it worse. A8UDI 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KITVlogo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KITVlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

discussion witth user over username

hi, you asked new user dave.in to consider changing their name because you think it violates policy. Please, what specific bit of policy is it violating? The bot report that you responded to specifically warns against false positives, and asks you to check that the domain is in use and not just domain squatted. A good faith editor with a non violating username could do with a better welcome than that, eh? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the relevant policy. @Kate (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How is dave.in violating that policy? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Kate, I fear you've misread the username policy in multiple ways. First, you're quoting from the section of the policy that tells new users how to choose a username. The section that tells experienced users how to enforce the username policy is farther down. Also, even the section you're quoting says that names such as "dave.in" are okay. As it's a coincidental match with a squatted domain, it's clearly not promotional. rspεεr (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't voicing an opinion one way or the other, merely pointing out the section that speaks of domain names. @Kate (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah... it sounded to me (and I presume to NotAnIP as well) that you were answering NotAnIP's question of "what specific bit of policy is it violating?" rspεεr (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'll try to make myself more clear next time. @Kate (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:Lkjflkjshfkljahsdlfkjhsd

• Per this section of the username policy, which states in part: "Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into one of the four categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own that they require an immediate block." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:WJHG.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WJHG.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 04:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lineosight

Hi there; this user, whom you have indef blocked as a username violation, has posted an unblock request and, I think, has a good point. Would you like to review their talk page? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed: A banned Wikipedia vandal is back

Hello. Recently you banned a user named Azayas4reel from Wikipedia. He has since created several sock puppets and have been subsequently banned. Unfortunately, he is back. He created a new user name Tainotalisman8 (he previously used the names HarabianNights, Harabiannights1 and Tainotalisman2. This user has been engaging in vandalism and self-promotion (check his history for more information). Could you please ban him again from Wikipedia? Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.96.44 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed: Azayas4reel is back with yet another sock puppet

Hello. Recently you banned a user named Azayas4reel from Wikipedia. He has since created several sock puppets and have been subsequently banned. Unfortunately, he is back. He created a new user name Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice (he previously used the names HarabianNights, Harabiannights1 and Tainotalisman2. This user has been engaging in vandalism and self-promotion (check his history for more information). Could you please ban him again from Wikipedia? Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.96.44 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of filing the case for you....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your swift action in the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/harassment that was affecting me. I fear the culprit will try to continue doing the same thing over and over again (this is his eighth or ninth time being banned by Wikipedia). Is there any legal recourse I could take in order to deter this harassment? Ronald Backardy (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy

La Salle Extension University

Thanks for protecting. You're right, this skirmish has been going on for some weeks now, and apparently actually a lot longer, only sporadically. It was accelerating recently, with no apparent resolution in sight, so it seemed best to bring it to a broader audience. Unfortunately, there seem to be two editors with specific and opposite agendas, so I'm not so sure this is going to end well, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You blocked me last time with a threat to block me indef the next time, which I still think was very excessive but anyway. The reason I'm here is that I'm involved in some Osho related articles where there are strong POV issues with some editors creating problems not only for me but for other people as well (I can provide diffs but if you had the time to check my contribs you'll discover whats been happening).

I had said I'll withdraw from an issue but I feel I need to get in. What do you suggest I do? I'm not going be to be blocked just for dealing with controversial articles, am I? I just want to be sure I'm not going to be surprise-blocked indef. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok great thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User report on Dorismann

Hi. Some time ago you banned Dorismann, after I reported him on WP:AIV for repeated vandalism. Well, yesterday I reported him again (diff here), but for some reason some non-admin user deleted the report a mere four hours after it was made, claiming it was a stale report (diff here). Is that a legitimate move? Thanks for your time. --uKER (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're not following. I want to report User:Icairns for deleting AIV reports. So I'm asking how to do that. --uKER (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. here's the report. --uKER (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Back again

This page is back again - not sure how you want to handle, but it looks fishy to me.  7  12:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Block reset???

RE: Hell_in_a_Bucket (talk · contribs)
I need to outline my thoughts here. I usually disagree with the user's methods, and have interacted with him on this topic. Since when is a "block reset" an appropriate resolution? It does not matter what you read after a user's block is in place. Once the block is in place, that is the length to be fulfilled unless the user commits an infraction on his own talk page (the only place he can thereafter edit), for which a new block can be outlined. Blocks are NOT meant to be punitive, but to curtail disruption. IMHO, this "block extension" is punitive and does not fall under acceptable use of the blocking policy. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed: A banned Wikipedia vandal is back

Hello. Recently you banned a user named Azayas4reel from Wikipedia. He has since created several sock puppets (I believe about 14 or so) and have been subsequently banned numerous times. Unfortunately, he is back. He created a new user name: Penumbras. This user has been engaging in vandalism and self-promotion (check his history for more information). Could you please ban him again from Wikipedia? Thank you so much. Ronald Backardy (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy

Disappointed in you.

Unfortunately you have disappointed me as well. Yet again you come in and block me for no good reason indeed this one quite out of policy. What the hell were you thinking? The only thing I asked on the last block request that if the time that was showing up on the editing window was correct then to correct the block log. Did you not see that if there was time left I said I would serve it? I'm trying to assume good faith here but your reset was punitive, I still disagree and definitely will not be apologetic about it. After a block is intiated you let me serve that time unless I offend again, extended a block because I disagree is crap, don't block me for disagreeing you only make yourself look vindictive and hateful. What is it you personally have against me? An isolated incident where I lose my cool, is exactly that, isolated. You bring up my blocks when I was first here. Does what I've done in the meantime mean nothing? I respectfully ask if you can't deal with me fairly and within policy to pass up my page and let a different admin do what needs to be done. The other admins from my last block don't hold it against me why would you? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You were continuing to compare our volunteers to murders less than an hour before you asked for your 5th unblock request. I have already pointed this out to you so I am pretty sure you are already aware of it. Why are you pretending that the block extension came out of nowhere when in fact you were continuing the same behavior that led to the initial block? What you did in the meantime was exactly the problem. This posting seems to be a bit insincere in how to skips these facts and instead alleges other motives that are not based in fact. ^Chillum 16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out the lack of any policy prohibiting me from doing so. If you can't handle I was deescribing behaviors in a historic manner, that's your bad. Would it have helped to compare them to the Theocracy of Iran? They haven't mass murdered anyone that I know of. Get over the name see the behaviors behind it that motivated the parable. I have no regrets about the meaning behind the comments, the delivery was uncivil. I just think you are seemingly acting to protect the status quo here of block and run....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? You want me to point out the part of the policy that says comparing Wikipedians to people committing murder is inappropriate? Basic social sense should tell you that. Fine, Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. from WP:NPA. Policy is not meant to be a complete list of everything inappropriate, the spirit is what is important. I accept that you sometimes have trouble realising when something is out of line, that is fine but you do need to listen when people tell you about it. Nothing is preventing you from criticising the actions of Wikipedians without resorting to comparing a web site block to religious based murder.

We have already had this conversation on your talk page though, you seem to have disregarded it so I see little point in repeating it. I will let Blueboy96 respond to you if he desires. If you wish to respond to me further please do so on my talk page. Please do not be so surprised if a repeat of such behaviour leads to another block, you have had all of this explained to you now. ^Chillum 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@ your page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail.

Wknight94 ^talk 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Bothwell OR

Hi, could you stop adding original research to the article on Cecil Bothwell? The stuff on the 1s/14th amendment is fine and well, but the Asheville Citizen-Times article doesn't say anything about Article 6 and the Supremacy clause, just the Constitution. Hekerui (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You adding it because you believe it's fitting while it's not in the article is original research. You can find another source to expand the rationale but in no case can you falsely attribute it to the given citation. Hekerui (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WVB

While I have no objection to WVB's block, may I point out that you declined the unblock on the grounds Decline reason: "Checkuser-confirmed sock of TDC. Blueboy96 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)". This is clearly incorrect - V has subsequently made it clear that CU was not the basis for the block William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Leavitt

What are you doing editing through a protection template? Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What gives you the right to do that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a question regarding this at the Administrators noticeboard here . Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Define Persistent(?)

Hi there. The vandel report is against someone whom I beileve has been persistent in vandelising a project page. I read the WP help files on the topic and believe I understand it, however, would appreciate your expanding on your comment. Maybe I'm missing something? Thanks. :) --Neon Sky (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

69.178.195.143 on AIV

For some reason the report on 69.178.195.143 keeps getting looked over and ignored. This is a user who has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia on this and other IP addresses, so giving them "another chance" to vandalize some more just seems silly. Please give the report and the contribs of the user in question and his sock to see this is someone that needs blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that vandal. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hippiepooter

Noticed the indefinite block you put on this user and removal of his last rant. Would it be reasonable to clear the page of his attacks on Jeremy Bowen (and to a lesser extent Wikipedia)? GDallimore (Talk) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Images not copyrighted

The accusation that the images in Shooting Range (Video game) are false. I did create those ingages as i said I did, and they wer't copyrighted. Please stop accusing me of something I didn't do! --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, HangingCurve. You have new messages at Bmpowell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evil saltine (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SchoolcraftT

I declined another RFU, the user has provided no evidence that he or she has researched the idea of copyright. SGGH ^ping! 13:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user

I think that the User:Wiki Greek Basketball never stoped editing and continued as User:Euroleague Basketball Project. Please check it. Thanks Sportin (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Block template

Just to let you know that you have blocked the following users but forgot to add the block templates to their talk pages:

• 86.164.145.0 (talk · contribs)
• 86.149.121.119 (talk · contribs)

Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold: User:OmniWikia

I'm considering unblocking this user. The current block seems to be based on them tripping the edit filter combined with past actions they were already blocked for. As you can see here [5] they were discussing how to avoid the problem with the edit filter just moments before being blocked, the timestamps indicate that they did not trip the filter again after this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Better handled?

I see that you blocked a user (indef.) and also speedily closed the AFD. I think the article is notable but it is easy to miss if you read WP:ATH because technically he didn't compete in the Olympics, which hadn't opened yet. The speedy close could be ok if it is explained well to the user. Blocking him on the pointy reason isn't clear on first look otherwise you'd block everyone with an AFD that speedily closed.

User:Tarc writes on ANI that the speedy close was wrong and there was heavy handedness.

I'd recommend that you advise the person that rules may not be clear (may have missed the WP:ATH part) and that having "Death of Nodar Kumarritashavili" is not appropriate given that the man is actually notable (qualified under the Luge World Championship). After explaining it, perhaps reduce the block to 31 hours. But to close the AFD and block the person isn't the best way towards openness and accountibility. That's why with the police, one guy makes the arrest and another prosecutes. Just a suggestion, sort of a moderate view in between Revenge No/Tarc and the other users supporting speedy close. Being polite is also the Christian way. Spevw (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: KOB

BB, on this edit:

• Revision as of 22:49, 28 December 2006 ~ Blueboy96

You made this sentence read:

"It is the oldest television station in New Mexico, the first television station between the Mississippi River and the West Coast, and the second oldest in the Mountain Time Zone (KDYL-TV in Salt Lake City, now KTVX, had signed on a month earlier)."

Isn't Salt Lake City between the Mississippi River and the West Coast?

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon Trail

Please note the following:

The Kentucky Distillers' Association owns numerous federally registered trademarks in the mark KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL® for use in connection with its tourist attraction now featuring SIX distilleries where visitors can learn about the art and science behind Kentucky's signature Bourbon industry including but not limied to: KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL + design, Reg. No. 2,584,119, KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL, Reg. No. 3,556,684, KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL + design, Reg. No. 3,556,71, and KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL, Reg. No. 3,710,981. See registered trademarks listed at United States Patent and Trademark Office [6] for Kentucky Bourbon Trail®.

Recently, the distilleries owned by Sazerac Company, Buffalo Trace and Tom Moore, resigned from the Kentucky Distillers' Association and are no longer members of the KDA or its KENTUCKY BOURBON TRAIL®. See Lexington Herald-Leader Newspaper article entitled "Buffalo Trace, Tom Moore leave distillers' group Boubon Trail at [7]. See also [8]. See also [9]. If you need more sources please let me know.

In light of the above, please make the necessary revisions to the wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennylane2009 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AHL and Hershey Bears articles

If you feel there is some reason to make major unexplained deletions and changes in these two long standing and well researched/sourced mature articles (neither of which you appear to have ever contributed to before), please discuss these first in talk. Both the AHL and Bears' pieces are the product of years of research and writing about the AHL and Hershey Bears by experienced editors who have been writing about these subjects for decades. Centpacrr (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Any idea who 72.58.152.5 (talk · contribs) is, then?

HalfShadow 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he's definitely somebody else as well. There's no way they'd know about my RfA unless they'd been here for years. HalfShadow 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I mean is this guy might have a sockdrawer. The IP edits alone suggest a history. HalfShadow 02:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I mean, yeah, clearly, but I have no idea who the sockmaster might be, only that they appear to know me and this suggests a sockpuppet. Without a guess who the sockmaster is, I haven't really got anything. HalfShadow 03:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_Admin_Privileges_by_User:Nick-D_and_User:Blueboy96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.83.124 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Necrosporus

A few days back User:Necrosporus was involved in some meatpuppetry which you appropriately blocked indef. He has approached me (iRC) about being reinstated. I have no prior contact with him and told him that I was unwilling to unblock him but that I would leave a note for you. I have told him that he must do some reading on our policies and guidelines before any consideration would be given. You should know that he has had trouble at the Russian wiki although I don't know if he was blocked. I don't really think I would unblock him if it were me but I did want to make you aware of the discussion. Thanks! JodyB _talk 18:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Received your comment at my page. I totally agree. Just passing the message. I will let him know. JodyB _talk 21:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Anselmgarbe

I find the arguments on WP:AN/I#User:Anselmgarbe for unblocking Anselmgarbe (talk · contribs) persuasive, and am going over to unblock shortly. Let me know if you have an issue with this, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To further clarify, I think that requiring he understand "the seriousness of what he's done" before unblocking when he's done nothing wrong is not a Good Thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ArneBab. Pcap ping 01:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NirvanaMan

You had blocked User:NirvanaMan in February for creating inappropriate pages, and now it looks like he's at it again. Anything I should do at this point? Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef--he hadn't edited at all since I blocked him, then he comes back and starts with the A7s? He doesn't deserve any leniency. Thanks for letting me know. Blueboy96 23:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Protections

Just to let you know, it's not Grawp. It's someone against Coldplay Expert. --Bsadowski1 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HangingCurve. You have new messages at Bsadowski1's talk page.
Message added 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bsadowski1 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Extra protection

Didn't mean to step on your protection here, looks like we both were doing it at the same time! Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mackey

Thanks for your help with the IP and socks on the Vic Mackey article (and the spillover onto my page). After you closed it out, Xsyner (talk · contribs) also came to the page, making (and then reverting) edits to the trivia section again. WHat makes this even more suspicious is the almost year-and-a-half break since the last edit the editor has made. Any thoughts on whether this editor is suspicious enough for a report? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)