User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Page protection - Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for adding the protection to my userpage, I much prefer it to be in it's current semi-protected state. Thank you again! ZX81 ^talk 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Better it's semi'd than you get harassed. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The Wiki protection page said a user page could be protected after it had been vandalised (which it has a few times now), but I wasn't sure how much vandalism was needed before I could request protection so I'm glad you did it before I got round to asking! ZX81 ^talk 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a hint: If your userpage starts being redirected, request protection immediately - that usually means that JarlaxleArtemis has posted an edit URL on 4chan and thus that there'll be 80 more coming your way. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How to find discussion on blocking?

Hi, I saw [this] block log and wanted to know how to find the discussion that led to the block. I did global searches for "Priyesh.786" and "User:Priyesh.786" in all namespaces and wasn't able to find anything. Thanks, Bongomatic 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The user was constantly posting material copyrighted by two Indian universities and was repeatedly recreating the articles that I and other administrators had deleted as copyvios; he came back as User:Mamboitaliana100 and continued, stopping only when I explained to him that we couldn't accept his submissions after he asked me to unprot one of the pages he tended to recreate. See User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 6#unprotect page "Kurukshetra University". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know who it is (I did many of the speedy nominations and identified the sources). I just wanted to know whether there were discussions to block the user, or if such determinations can be unilateral and undocumented. Tx Bongomatic 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For blatant and unrepentant copyright violations, the rule is block on sight, sooner rather than later on the off-chance the violator happens to be PT. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Hi,

I wanted to know you opinion on starting a MFD on castrated ram's userpage. I am concerned it is a shrine. From other Wikis where they have also vandalised links to page including Uncyclopedia and Wikibooks along with numerous others. There's even a definition at urban dictionary about them. If the page stays do you think it may inspire copycats? Regards--DFS454 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the userpage - I'm not familiar with that user, and he doesn't seem to exist. Also, the Urban Dictionary entry is for the literal sense (i.e. a castrated male sheep). -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being ambiguous I thought I saw you using the Moniker for them DFS454 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "wethers" don't have userpages other than IP pages. And in any case, I'm not the person you should be asking given that I have an axe to grind against Jarl. Find someone more neutral. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Drizzt Do'Urden

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Well, that was fun, eh? What glorious lives we admins lead. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I caught it after I read the AIV report that had gotten his right to make new accounts revoked; I was just boggled at the number of attack accounts made because someone forgot to check a box and the fact the blocking admin missed the sockfarm. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What's weird is, the "prevent account creation" box is checked by default. So Bongwarrior had to un-check it. I have no idea why. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a username softblock. SOP for those is to uncheck that box, so I can understand why he did it, but given the name, I would have hardblocked the name. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those blocks but when blocking grawp accounts please block with email and talkpage blocked as well or else he abuses those as well --Chris 06:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Had I known beyond a doubt they were Jarl socks I'd've done so, Chris. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs a dab of joy! ^_^

You might wanna take a wikibreak when you start doing things like this... So I'ma give you a Smile! :-D

Yamakiri ^T_C 01-25-2009 • 21:08:08 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

'Bout the only joy I'm getting nowadays is getting rid of Jarl socks and Ubering Heavies, Yama. Nevertheless, I appreciate the thought. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well glad to hear you're up and defending the wiki >_^ Yamakiri ^T_C 01-26-2009 • 00:17:51

User talk:Curps

Please reconsider your move to unprotect this page. After you approved this request, Barrier, mate went on a move spree and then nominated a page for deletion in a bad faith manner; likely his account was hijacked by a page-move vandal. He has since been indefinitely blocked and I'm not sure if unprotection is prudent based on the requestor. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed it; thank you for the info. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also tweaked the block to negate possible email access; there's a good chance this is an ED Joe job against Grawp or a genuinely compromised account (or both), and in either case should not have access to the emailuser function. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on this. Nate • (chatter) 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Null persp; I apologize for not being faster. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Sorry - just have to do it. This is just nuts ... - Alison ^❤ 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Undone. I'm headed that way in ~ 14 minutes; I'll prot it myself then. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ufff - it's wrecking my watchlist (and head) :/ - Alison ^❤ 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm camping the page right now. I don't need a prot until I need to go to bed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey Jeske, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive. Thanks in advance. Grsz¹¹ 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All 23 edits? (I just want to ask before I restore all of them) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just need to copy some stuff and then i'll db it again. Grsz¹¹ 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done When you're done, ping me and I'll kill it again. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Not a problem. Happens to me all the time. :) seresin ( ¡? )  04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we call that a 'cock block'?

Or should I be embarrassed for that and ashamed of myself? HalfShadow 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Get our mind outta the gutter ;P I've fixed it already and blocked the right account; I'd gotten distracted before I hit "block". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Thanks for the prompt response! Brianyoumans (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to go put the block notice on the correct page now... (rakes self) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this again

Unacceptable. If you must block an account in violation of AGF, use a less offensive summary. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that that section is c&p'd from the section above verbatim. I've already been scolded and blasted for it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but it didn't seem to sink in then. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, CHL, I've just hidden the block comment so that admins/oversighters only can see it ... in deference to the editor. Per oversight-l email, I'm doing it here as policy is currently somewhat gray re. revision visibility and I feel bad for the blocked editor. Commenting here for visibility and accountability - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On wikibreak

Hey all. Jéské is currently on two weeks' wikibreak, so if you've admin stuff, feel free to ask me or another admin for assistance. He deserves the rest - Alison ^❤ 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heu g r?

I assume you missed the fact, that the talk page you deleted was actually Talk:Austria–Hungary moved by a vandal. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had thought I'd gotten the correct page. My apologies (I notice it's been fixed since; I was on break when you posted the above). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Schmeutrality

I am somewhat annoyed that you decided to delete this article under an incorrect criterion, after I had declined it just minutes before and tagged for prod. I request you revise this mistake. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed your decline when I speedied it. I see no assertations of notability in that article; I will not object if you reinstate and reprod, be aware. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You should really check the page history before deleting things...and, I know you are an admin and longer than I am, but please read A7. It does only allow deletion for real persons, organisations and web content. Not logical concepts, even if they derive from a webcomic. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came back from a Wikibreak, SoWhy; my apologies for the rust. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Article fully restored, along with PROD. As I'm not aware which edits are from the current incarnation and which edits are not, I restored all of them. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, no harm done. That's why I came here after all, instead of just undoing your actions. Have a nice day SoWhy 08:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good timing; it's 0:20 over here :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

South Pasadena Middle School now

You protected the high school article - now the kiddies have moved on to South Pasadena Middle School. Thanks!  :)  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tell me when they move on to the elementary school. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note I've indef'd the main account behind it. He still denies it, but his contributions are very damning. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Spyro page protection

As well as Spyro (series) The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night and The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon.

Thank you for the full protection on all above articles. However no progress has been made. The opposing party left one reply to my original message and hasn't bothered to continue talking about this. Thus I went to the Requests for Protection and requested for an unprotection and was told to contact you about it.

So could you please protect the coresponding pages and watch them incase the opposing party tries to make the edits he refused to discuss. Thank you.

I'll unprotect all of them. I fixed your link above, hopefully you did not mind. If he shows up again, don't edit-war with him if you can avoid it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link, stuff like that happens to me more often then i'd like it to. If he tries to make the controvertial edits then i'll contact you. Thanks for being a good Admin. We need more like you.Wise dude321 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to revert him, just don't edit-war while doing it. He's technically being disruptive by refusing consensus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Convert

Why d'ya convert 'mon and 'pets? I like them. --98.162.148.46 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a challenge. Those two really don't have much on them, even if you look. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

anesthesia

I believe mmackinnon and I are at an impasse. He is particularly interested in including an AANA talking point that happens to be misleading; I am particularly interested in leaving that out. Since he doesn't want a neutral position (but insists on the misleading talking point), mere facts aren't going to convince him. I'd like to ask you to change the section to leave out "CRNAs do not require Anesthesiologist supervision in any state and only require surgeon/dentist/podiatrists to sign the chart for medicare billing in all but 16 states."

I'd obviously prefer my version, but would settle for something like "the precise scope of nurse anesthetist practice varies state by state".

Separately, Finavon and Depstein have contributions that ought to enter the page; these are not politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffington (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I cannot edit on behalf of any party on a page I myself protected. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is the next step? Surely it must be something other than "wait until August and then fix things"...Riffington (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask for unprotection if discussion is not happening. But do not make editprotected requests to request disputed edits. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was mmackinnon who requested the editprotect, not me. I am not really sure how the moderation system works.Riffington (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it goes. When someone requests a full-protection due to a dispute on an article, the article will remain locked down until all parties establish a consensus, or until one of the major sides starts refusing to discuss. While it is protected, people may use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page to request edits be made to the article, but these edits cannot be to, or directly tied with, the subject matter in dispute or else the administrator servicing the request will reject it. The admin who protected the article is not permitted to involve himself in the dispute. If you think protection's served its purpose or is failing, you can request an unprotection at WP:Requests for page protection and an admin will see to it, probably after requesting you take it up with me first. Note that if discussion related to the dispute is still taking place on the talk page of an article, I will be disinclined to unprotect it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User Name

I'm not changing my username. Why do you want me to change it?--JoeCool950 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying rename your *old* username. The one you had before you were JoeCool950. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That one doesn't exist, I've always had JoeCool950.--JoeCool950 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd doublecheck if I were you, in particular check "What links here" and look for redirects to your user page. One of the accounts with a userpage redirect to yours was blocked as a Grawp sock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to tell me what username your talking about, because my username as I recall was not blocked as a Grawp sock. Tell me though what a Grawp sock is, so I can let you know.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Grawp. And the username is the one you were renamed from, according to the logs: Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already had Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) changed back to my original one JoeCool950 (talk · contribs). Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) shouldn't exist. If it's not against the rules, I could move it myself, but if so, I'll request for the page to be deleted.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did someone try to use that name Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs)? That's what it looks like. Thanks for deleting it. I figured that was the best way.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone did. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't move a page with edits onto another one with edits. I'll kill it for you if you wish. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put a request for a deletion. If I ever do decide to use that name again, then I can, not that I want to now, but just asking?--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until you have it renamed first; at present it's blocked indefinitely, no email, no talk page as a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp. You will also have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and the user talk page redirect. I wish you luck. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why then there was a block on the Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs), since someone tried to use it. Hopefully, you guys were able to figure out who it was. I think then, it was a safe thing to have it deleted. Would you mind watching my current one JoeCool950 (talk · contribs) and if someone else tries to use it, let me know, just like with Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs). Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(RI) So long as you keep using JoeCool950, there's no risk of someone taking it. However, I'll ask on IRC for the namewatcher botop to add the string "JoeCool". -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it redirected to JoeCool950 (talk · contribs), don't know if it would be a safe thing or not?JoeCool950 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You still have JoeCool950. The name-watcher bot only triggers when someone creates a new user account with that specific string. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did send the guy who blocked the username and thanked him for catching that. I'm wondering should Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) stayed blocked, or since they know it wasn't me, if they'll unblock it.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean I would have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account of Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs)? I'm not even on wikimedia? Is that how it got caught? By the way, sorry for all the questions, just trying to figure out how it got hacked into in the first place.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It got caught because it started doing Hagger pagemoves, and it wasn't hacked. When a user is renamed, the old username becomes unregistered (which is why it's recommended to reregister the old account as an anti-impersonation measure). When I say contact stewards on meta, I mean at Meta-Wiki, the hub for all the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, or thru IRC (using a program such as chatzilla) - they are the only ones with the power to nullify existing unified accounts, but they can only do so if all instances of that name is gone first, so you may be asked to work with them so that they can remove the unified account as soon as the local (English Wikipedia) account is renamed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Must you have an account with Wikimedia to contact them? I don't have an account with Wikimedia. I tried to contact them last night, but it shows I don't have an account on Wikimedia. The only account I've got is the Wikipedia account?--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

An alternative is to unify your Wikipedia account. Once you have JoeCool950 unified, you'll also have a Meta account, though you may have to log out and then log back in to sign into it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just put the wikipedia website with my user name. The one that was hacked into, so they can see what they can do and left them my talk page. Was that o.k. to do? I don't think it's worth having two accounts, so once they fix the other one, what should we do with that one. I didn't even know that I still had the Joey Kaminski account. I thought once they switched it back to JoeCool950, that the user name Joey Kaminski no longer existed? Let me know what I need to do for the future, if I change JoeCool950? Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If that wasn't o.k. just let me know and I'll unify the JoeCool950 account to get into wikimedia to get the user name Joey Kaminski fixed, or see what they can do. Once it's fixed, is it safe to use that account again, since someone got into there?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Joey Kaminski account was unclaimed. Upon being renamed, the account becomes unregistered, so anyone may take it. The only account you've had since the rename was JoeCool950. My $.02 is leave the page deleted - he's not gonna be able to use it since standard operating procedure vs. Grawp is to lock him out of the emailuser function and his own talk pages (else he goatses them). Unify JoeCool950, ask the stewards for help and cooperate with them, and reregister Joey Kaminski when they gave you the all clear and give it a random password. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have them take the unify account off of Joey Kaminski, or do what ever needs to be done, but I think I will though once they fix it, keep it deleted. If I keep it deleted though, is it even worth asking a steward to take care of that stuff?--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there away to take off the blocking on the account Joey Kaminski, since we had it deleted, or should we keep that account blocked. Not really understanding. A steward replied and told me the account was already blocked, so just wondering if the blocking can be taken off the account Joey Kaminski, since we deleted it? I did contact a stewart and replied back that I wanted the unify account removed on the Joey Kaminski account... We'll see what they say. I'll keep checking periodically and let you know what they say.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it involves a renaming of the Joey Kaminski account, the block will move with the name. Ask if the SUL can be removed from the Joey Kaminski account so that you can reregister the account as an anti-impersonation measure (since it is a past username). If it helps, post a request at WP:CHU to help speed the process. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Joey Kaminski Username

I told them to remove the SUL from the Joey Kaminski account and just told them that it will show that the account is blocked, but asked for them to remove that. After that's done, should I reregister the account as an anit-impersonation measure, since I'm not going to use it. If so, what type of username should I type in there, or request it as, or just put anti-impersonation measure on there?--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Once the account is renamed and the SUL gone, register the Joey Kaminski account and slap a random password in here. I did the same thing when Grawp somehow managed to circumvent the anti-spoofing measures and got my old name ("Jeske Couriano", without the diacritics), so I know what I'm talking about. Once that is done, feel free to toy with the userspace (even redirecting it to JoeCool950 as it was before, if need be). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:CHU reuest

Okay, thanks, I'll Change the sig mczack26 speaktome 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, why are people complaining about your sig starting in lowercase? There are several people here who have similar sigs (many of which are admins); why is yours being singled out? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did an editor review and it was mentioned that my username didn't meet Wiki Specifications. Mczack26 speaktome 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your username, lowercase or no, does pass WP:U, so trust me when I say they're full of blarney. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

OK i understand what you are saying i just did not want it added because i was just following what it said on the talk page that don't add thing without reliable resources i was not trying to go against any of Wiki's rules. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you discussion on the Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260) i guess no one is perfect i was not trying to prevent the person from adding it i was as i said before just following the rules that where put on the talk page and sorry if it felt like it was an attack in any way it was not meant like that at all. Kyle1278 (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be mean. You made a similar mistake I did when I fought against adding SIHULM to the Pokémon list article. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again, chummer, don't sweat it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Change in

The stewards said that would be fine and told me what you said to request it under WP:CHU. Since I'm using the JoeCool950 name, I'll let you guys decide what to change the name to and then you guys can take the block off of it, use it for someone new signing into Wikipedia, if that makes since to you. If you want, you can even handle the changing the Joey Kaminski user name to some account user name for someone new which is what should be done with that username. If someone decides to use Joey Kaminski after me then, it will be on them and not me. Just wanted to clue you in and that's why I lef NEW (NEW) on the request page. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to handle taking off the blocking off of that once the user name Joey Kaminski is changed to a user account name. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The block will be on the new name, not Joey Kaminski (the block log moves with the name now). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That will work. Once I see the that it has been changed, I'll have the stewards nullify the SUL, or should I leave it up to the person that hacked into it. That's what one steward said about the current Joey Kaminski account that were requesting to change. This another steward said (:Hello JoeCool950, I have locked that account since its only contributions are vandalic, which user is impersonated by it? If the user who is impersonated wants that name he will have to ask for renames on en.wiki (should be uncontroversial, vandal edits there) and on pl.wiki (0 edits there). Afterwards he can come here and ask for the deletion of this global name so he can register it new, to coordinate this better he may visit ##wikimedia-stewards ^connect. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ) Hopefully that makes since. The template channel part if your just reading probably doesn't but he's saying there for whoever the impersonator was to visit wikimedia-stewards themselves. Just wanted to know once the Joey Kaminski account that's blocked is changed, should I still request myself for the stewards to nullify the SUL, or have someone new do that? That's what I'm asking?--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Once you notice it's been renamed, contact the stewards *immediately*. I'll help back you up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

I saw a comment of your's. It is signed Jeremy but your name is Jeske. Why the difference. Why not just sign your name Jeske to avoid confusion? FK20 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's signed Jeremy because /b/ won't stop forcing it on me. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although ...

...I had already replied at his talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your welcome. No worries about the rollback - it took me a while to figure out what was going on over there, but looks like somewhere in the midst of it someone didn't revert back far enough and the vandal actually reverted themselves...or something. Use once then dispose of safely (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The vandal did revert himself after Sinebot signed his initial post there. I'm already emailing Oversight over the edits to permanently remove them from view. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops!

Hey Jeske

That was not my intention and i apologize. I did not know any other way to contact you to refute the arguments made. Sorry again.Mmackinnon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In the future, if I remove something from my talk page, please do not reinstate it. The same follows for any other user (and you have the same right). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah I actually thought i must not have saved it or something. My fault there.Mmackinnon (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton full pro

Please template so that editors are warned ;)--Cerejota (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; the El Machete thing kinda took up my time last night. Done now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2 so be on the lookout for further fun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

eh

You may wish to drop a quick note here: Wikipedia:AN/I#unblocked. Perhaps an annotation of the block log would be helpful as well if Orangemike signals he is ok with the user proceeding. –xeno (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike signalled that he is ok with it. Since you seemed to have brokered this topic ban could you add an annotation to his block log regarding this? (as the most recent entry is me typing "restoring original block" but I actually ended up setting an expiry that had already passed) thanks, –xeno (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

: )

-Axmann8 (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Question 2

I was wondering if the Joey Kaminski username is taken care of?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to confirm that you want the SUL annulled at Meta. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank'ee, Dædalus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. No idea what that was all about, and no more idea having read the AN/I thread. But thanks all the same. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's been harassing User:Marek69 over an edit-war, is as close as I got. The newest ones seem to be shotgunning their efforts. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 3

I think I took care of getting the Joey Kaminski account annulled, or the SUL annulled. If so, now it can be useable again? Would you mind checking into it and letting me know. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You can easily check yourself by trying to register it. If it won't let you register it, then the SUL still exists. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean registering it on Wikipedia?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8

I noticed an ancient bad speedy tag by this user, looked at his contributions and so on, and couldn't miss his most recent edit, [1], claiming that he is ignoring his topic ban for what he calls IAR (not really applicable here). Since you were the admin who last unblocked him (impressive log, that!), I suppose you know more about what caused the topic ban and the actual unblock conditions and so on (his talk page is never archived, often blanked, and a mess to look through). I leave it to you to take any action if needed, or to ignore this edit if it is allright. Fram (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we specified whether or not talk pages were included in the topic ban, actually. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? He again invokes IAR to override a topic ban there[2] (I don't know if he has a topic ban that applies there, but the edit summaries certainly give a bad impression about his willingness to change anything). Fram (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified it there. Since he's not editing a politics article or directly commenting on one at AN/<foo> (instead, he's talking about a user), he's not violating his topic ban. I'm also specifying that, so long as he is not disruptive on the talk pages, he can edit them, but no farther. I have a feeling I'll end up in hot water for this, but I feel it's best to clarify his limits so that less questions about (un)suitable edits need to be asked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, no problem. Let's hope he stays well outside the boundaries of his topic ban, and avoids the worrying edit summaries as well. But if he doesn't, I'll not start blaming you for it, trying to keep an editor out of trouble is rarely a bad thing. Fram (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

EGM

The user is continuing to attack and soapbox on his talk page, could you please blank it, all the others with a redirect to the main account's userpage, and indefinitely protect them?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, this message was removed by what appears to be another EMG sock. I have filed an SPI regarding it. I realize what this request requested has already been done, but I'm just reverting the sock's edit.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See below. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding El Machete Guerrero

Hi, Jéské; just thought I'd drop in and let you know that we're considering the El Machete Guerrero situation closed and community banning him. Since WP:BAN states that banned users aren't permitted to edit their user talk pages, I was wondering if you'd mind redirecting and protecting Machete's various user talk pages? If you'd rather someone uninvolved do it, I'll just ask at WP:RFPP though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would rather ask that someone uninvolved do it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll ask elsewhere. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For an explanation of my suggestion to wait six months, see Wikipedia:Standard offer. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This may require more discussion, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"blacks getting their President"

Many respected newspapers in the world have said something like "blacks getting their President". How is it you can take offense? More to the point, what rule did Axmann8 break in uttering those words? I wish I was coming to the defence of a more deserving character, but there is some principle involved here. Habeas_corpus, natural justice. Shame. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the USA, it's it's own private webisite with it's own set of rules. You can cut the attitude now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in discussion if you don't want to engage in discussion. In any event, please address the argument, not the person. I never said this was the USA, so that's a straw man. Natural justice is called that because it is something that all human beings are supposed to be able to understand, and to expect. Habeas corpus is a principle embodied in the WP rules and regs, even if its Latin name is not emblazoned therein. There is a set of rules here, and I'm asking which one was broken, in this instance. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to see a link to a reputable publication that said anything close to "blacks getting their President". –xeno (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If I provide one does that mean you concede my point? On the other hand, are you neglecting to say what rule Axmann8 broke? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

being a disruptive SPA is enough for me, but I highly doubt there was a newspaper that printed something as openly racist as that. –xeno (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So you cannot identify the rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"? Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent]Here are some of the "openly racist" extracts you seem not to think can exist. From the left-leaning UK Guardian:

20-Jan-09: But it is not only black America's pride in Obama that is lending extra magic ...

1-Mar-07: There is an assumption that black people will flock to a black candidate that simply does not apply to their white counterparts.

From the centrist and free market Economist:

22-Jan-09: Roughly two-thirds of African-Americans now believe that Martin Luther King's dream has been fulfilled.

I wasn't even trying. Now what's the WP rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"?

Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Want me to cite a rule? No disruptive editing. That's the rule he broke, now kindly stop, because you're not going to get what you want by continuously trying to push others around.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your by now standard repetitive and unreasonable accusation of my supposed poor behaviour is objectionable. I won't be bullied by you. Go file an RfC or an ANI or whatever. Now, I am not saying that Axmann8's behaviour was good, I just want to know what rule he broke when he said "blacks getting their president." Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're not trying to push Jeremy around until you get what you want, why are you here, at his talk page, instead of ANI?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I note again you neglect to address the argument but rather to pursue and repeat your false allegation of poor behaviour against me. I came here for a private discussion with Jeremy. It is for Jeremy to say whether he thinks I am "pushing him around", not you. I think you should not have intervened. And I think I should not have responded to you here, on someone else's talk page. Now, I will take this back to ANI so that you can reply to the question: What rule did the (disreputable) Axmann8 break when he said "blacks getting their president". Please do not respond here. See you at ANI. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, I remain interested as to why you took offense at Axmann8's remark. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You should know better than to think you have have a private discussion with anyone on wikipedia. If you wanted to have a private discussion with him, you could have used your email. Now, you say you are interested in why Jeremy took offense. Why are you interested? What do you hope to achieve?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I already told you what rule he broke, or were you not listening? Disruptive editing is a sound reason for a block as is anything else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "secret", I said "private". If you wish to have a discussion with me, then you can have it on your talk page or on mine. But I won't respond further to you here, in Jeremy-space. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say secret either? What are you reading? Certainly not my posts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your examples - these aren't even close. –xeno (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been here the past 24 hrs, Psb. Saying I'm not responding over that period of time is only true because I did not have Wikipedia access at all during that time. Now please stop calling abuse of the Constitution when it's been made clear that Wikipedia is neither Congress nor a state of the Union. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jarmancooper2

While I appreciate your diligence in protecting my user page with this diff, I have returned it for a short. The account was not blocked until 2 hours later, and so at the time you removed this from my page it had not been a restricted account. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be coming by to revert it as a banned user's contribs. CU rejected because accounts were quacking loud enough to wake the dead. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the blocked sock is one belonging to a banned user because a checkuser referred to an essay in deciding not to run a check, that is fine. However, I will ask that you do not take that as carte blance to edit my user page, and in the future simply ask or request that comments be removed. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The duck test is commonly cited as a reason to block sockpuppets, Michael, so it's not just an essay - it actually has some power to it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand its power, and also that as an essay it is controversial, and not guideline nor policy no matter how many times it is quoted. I also accept that we do have socks here. I do not think one reasonbly civil edit from the first as a SPA was enough to result in the then including of a vilified user's name in an otherwise convoluted and dificult discussion. The second such, assumably a sock of the first, confirmed presence of socks. Just not whose. And I am in agreement that the user apparently likes stirring up wikidrama, for the conversation was fairly smooth until the fecal material was thown into the spinning blades of the fan... actually resulting in more harm to than any possible good, which would seem to be at odds with the purported intentions... unless such was exactly the intention. A very bad thing. But back to my user page... unles there is blatant vandalism, it is hoped that we might simply communicate before anything is reverted? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barring flat vandalism, agreed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting blatant vandalsim is always appreciated. If I had not been checking my own history, I might never had noticed the visit from a sock, and then might have said something somewhere else that would have me appear quite the ass. I do understand you acted with only the best of intentions. So thank you much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

68.101.104.146

Hi Jeske, an IP, 68.101.104.146, keeps vandalizing my user page. You blocked them here for a week, and unfortunately they're at it again, see this edit, reverted by a helpful editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the fluffery on their talk page and issued a {{uw-advert4im}}. They do it again, tell me and I'll block them. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please advise

Hello Jéské, while interacting with another editor in several discussions he has levelled several claims against me of harassment and sexual harassment. Our entire history can be found at Talk:Bono#? and User talk:MelicansMatkin#SEE HERE. The editor has stated that he will report me, and I have provided him with several links as to how he can do so if he is really so concerned. He has yet to go any further but I have told him that I will bring the issue to ANI if he does not, and if he continues to make these claims against me. I intend to do so only if he responds with further claims against me on my talk page. Do you believe I should ignore this issue or make good on my word if he does? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him in no uncertain terms that the next baseless accusation of harassment he levels will be his last. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; if he does it again I'll take it straight to AIV or ANI. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU

Don't threaten me. I wasnt wrong in making my harassment claim He followed my edit and undid it. Hes in the wrong so dont come threatening some one whos not.LifeStroke420 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And that justifies accusations of sexual harassment? Besides, I am well aware Melicans has Pokémon on his watchlist, so unless you have another page which he has reverted you on that he has NEVER edited before, you have no leg to stand on, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And now your name calling I'd suggest you don't do that or the exact same threats that you said to me will happen to you. Also for all I know the reason you know it is because you both know each other and your just taking his side either way it leads to a biased threat. Now I'd suggest you stay out of it and quit your name calling.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chummer isn't an insult, LifeStroke, if you'd so much as read any of the threads using it above. I'm taking his side because you're making accusations of harassment and not providing any evidence whatsoever. I will say it again: Any more baseless accusations of harassment from you will be met with an indefinite block. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

May not be a insult but still name calling Kepp it up and you will be blocked.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Besides not its not a baseless accusation he said on the Bono talk page he had been reviewing my edits and then he undoes one coincidence? I think not.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

'Tis not a personal attack, and you are not an administrator. I am. If you feel I've wronged you, bring it up at WP:AN/I, but I wager that it'll be disastrous for you. And the Bono edit should have been reverted; works of fiction are never reliable sources in biographies of living persons. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jéské calls everyone "chummer"; it's a friendly thing, like the way I call a few editors "mate". He is not, as you believe, taking my side because I asked him too. You threatened to report me for "harassment", and I responded that I would take the issue to AN/I if you continued to make unfounded claims. I came to Jéské to ask if I should follow through on this or ignore you because I have had interactions with him in the past and I trust his judgement.

I would like to note that I have been an active member of WP:PCP since 28 March 2008, as can be seen here, and all of the Pokémon articles are on my watchlist because they attract a lot of vandalism; even articles I have never edited, such as the TCG are on there. I took a cursory look at your talk page because I like to have an idea of who I'm talking with when in a dispute so I can best assess how to resond. The four blocks, countless warnings, and your comments to other users were more than enough to convince me that you had no inclination in taking part in a serious discussion. I haven't even looked at any of your other edits, and the fact that you made an addition to the Pokémon article that I reverted is simply a coincidence. When I compare edits I look at the content, not the contributors. I didn't even realize it was your edit I had reverted until after you came screaming at me on my talk page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that this is in re my past handling of Frankenstein's Monster's harassment-by-proxy and my shot-from-the-hip block back in February. I've been taking steps to try and distance myself from the causes of those situations, and I don't need Friday screaming "Pant Devil" when I've just been robbed by the Tax Beast. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User ERICOLEGAL

You indef blocked the subject user a couple of hours ago and he has made a good-faith appeal of his block per your notice. I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How'd I miss this section?! (apologies to you, Kuya) Anyhow, I wouldn't unblock because of the severe conflict there (and the rule is mainly m:Role account regarding shared accounts). Another admin's seen and declined the unblock since he asked for the fluffery and advert to be reinstated in the unblock request. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow admin!

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I know you don't have the kind of free time you'd like to have, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're an addie now? *applauds* excellent work, BOZ! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IP sock/off-wiki harassment

Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi Jeske, you've warned and blocked an IP once or twice for vandalizing my user page. Well, they're at it again, and if you look at their edits you'll see that, well, that's pretty much the only thing that IP does, and I'm sick of it. Would you consider swinging your big administrator's stick? And I mean big, since temporary blocks don't seem to do much. Thanks. 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this last night. Yeah, I'm noticing it's sustained vandalism to your user page, and all by the same IP, which suggests to me this IP is static. Blocked for a month. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi

as I half expected, he hit me no sooner than the previous had expired. What a pain in the ass troll. StarM 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He's also predictable. Consider requesting an AF for his behavior. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion. Will look into it as I'm unfamiliar with that. His actions are predictable even if his IP isn't due to proxy hopping. StarM 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bianca Ryan semi-protection issue

You left a comment on my page about semi-protection of the Bianca Ryan page, followed immediately by a comment saying the request is declined. Was this request already discussed or are you just taking it upon yourself to decide semi-protection isn't needed? There's an ongoing pattern of vandalism on this page. Two weeks isn't a significant amount of time.Docsavage20 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All admins may take it upon themselves to decide whether or not a semi-protection or full-protection on a page is necessary based on the page's edit history. I did so; hence the "Declined" result. And, yes, a fortnight is a significant enough amount of time, especially given that there has been absolutely 0 edits during that time frame to that article. If you wish a second opinion, take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi Jeske, I have created a user page draft Just Like the Son. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is this draft? Be aware that if it does not meet Wikipedia's policies, it won't be unprotected. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, never mind; note that I said userspace draft (i.e. a subpage of your user page), but your own user page will do as well. You might want to convert the references into inline citations with the {{cite}} template and its bretheren, and you are going to have to completely rewrite the Plot Summary and lead sections to remove the promotional tone it presently has. Also, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copy-and-pasted content from other sites; that's illegal. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeske, I have created a new user page draft for Just Like the Son. References have been converted into citations, promotional tone removed and originial plot summary submitted. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still uses promo-style wording; however, I've discussed this with some other users and they think it may be good enough for a go in mainspace. I'll move the article for you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP stalker

• 207.237.33.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - one of his original IPs
• 207.237.230.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - new IP sock you need to block, even more so per here.

Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that I posted this message on three other involved admin pages, so that it can be dealt with swiftly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but please note that I'm not often on from Saturday night to Sunday night Pacific time. Blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Block request

User talk:207.73.252.254 It's back. Enigma^msg 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your e-mail

Responded to ya. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete

Popartpete has responded on his talk page and is willing to go into mentoring. I think he will place a proper unblock request soon. I have been emailing him and talking him down from his earlier volatile nature and giving him advice. It seems he is finally listening to reason.Drew Smith What I've done 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the mentoring? My main question is should it be informal, with everyone just kind of agreeing it's best, or will there be official procedures and followups and enforcement? I'm good wih either way. You're the admin, you decide whats best.Drew Smith What I've done 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No thoughts on the mentoring from me, since I can't make heads-or-tails of it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got the idea. Wikipedia:MENTORDrew Smith What I've done 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection/Block Appeal Etc.

No response received on WP:AN, I see. My concern with the full protection of the talk page was that I didn't feel that I'd received my right to appeal to administrators. There were no indeed no administrators willing to unblock on WP:ANI, but I doubt that many had gone to all the trouble of reading the entire talk page of the disputed article, and because the protecting admin had deleted all of my arguments, I had no opportunity to appeal to other administrators on the talk page. That's why I don't feel that it would be appropriate to contact ArbCom at this time; my full right to appeal to other administrators has not yet been expended. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Let me make you this deal: So long as you keep emails and other private correspondence with other editors off the talk page (since that was what caused the protection in the first place), I will unprotect it for you. Is that acceptable? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Unprotected. Make your appeal, and good luck. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

please unprotect Anesthesia

Anesthesia is currently full-protected and due to expire in August. However, the users who had been edit-warring on it have not edited (at all) for nearly two months. Today somebody wanted to edit the article and had to use the talk page even though they were auto-confirmed because the article is still full-protected. I think the protection has served its purpose and should be removed. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed ANI thread

Isn't this[3] a bit fast? Shouldn't the other editors involved get a chance to explain their actions? They are being (wrongly) accused of corruption and ganging up, after all. Yintaɳ  22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't close it, but the whole complaint seems to revolve around those two templated messages. It's not the first time a complaint based on the user talk template messages has come to AN/I, and I doubt it will be the last. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just learned Eugene Krabs doesn't appear to be interested in replying. I guess that makes my point moot anyway. Thanks. Yintaɳ  22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration, Yintan. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New wikiproject being proposed for deletion

The brand new Wikiproject User Rehab is being proposed for deletion. After our escapade with Popartpete, perhaps you could take a look at the project, and weigh in at the deletion discussion?Drew Smith What I've done 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your unblock of my account! Wireless Keyboard ^Click! _Clack! 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking a few minutes to deal with SonofFeanor and his socks. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration; Synergy contacted me on IRC and asked me to do it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou

Arbcom seems a bit much. He's rarely more than a minor nuisance now. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to take it to ArbCom and/or Jimbo over a content dispute isn't being a "minor nuisance" in my opinion. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really that bothered, but looking at the list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou, shouldn't my name be there? I was the one against whom he made the most direct accusation of WP:COI (even though he can't spell my username). It's also me he means by "Sammy". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If I omitted you, feel free to add yourself to the list of involved editors and make a statement while you're doing so. Apologies, SamuelTheGhost. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hey Jéské, I noticed that on your user page you've formatted it so that your userboxes are contained within several drop-down menus. I've been looking to do something similar with my page since it's becoming rather disorganized and cluttered. I was wondering how you formatted it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I took the code for my drop-downs from WP:UBX, which has such an example. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check that out; can't believe I didn't think to look there! MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Garibaldi

Thanks for blocking him. Given his massive level of talkpage abuse, can he be re-blocked without the ability to edit his own page? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds got to it first. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tombstone's pages

Re your message: Argh! I didn't notice that. I'll put them back without the CSD tags. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing restores again as well; apologies. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, everything is back now I think without the CSD tags. Next time, I need to look at the dates a little more closely. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And next time, when I'm doing mass-restores I need to omit any edits with speedy tags on them... -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Too bad you're not paid by the hour ;) or I could have made both of you a small fortune. Tombstone (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned means banned

My IP stalker appears to have showed up, this time under a username, see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is your IP stalker indeed a banned user? If so, hit up SPI. I'm leery of blocking thus far because he seems to be constructive, aside from the canvassing. Canvassing people who participated in Collect's RfC, whilst suspicious, isn't in and of itself proof positive he's a sock. Once he does something actionable, I can and will deal with it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Wikinfo

As your comment has nothing to do with development of the article, I think it better to reply here.

I think you mean "I think you're process-wonking right there". As I explained to you I have not accused anyone of sockpuppetry, nor have I have made an allegation. I would object to the removal of anything I have written to talk:Wikinfo, and I can see noting in the guidelines which would warrant you making such a removal, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, and even if you consider it to be a personal attack -- which I do not -- I do not think you can justify it under either Wikipedia:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments) or Wikipedia:personal attacks#Removal of text. -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. Your repeated implications that he was using multiple accounts *is* an accusation of sockpuppetry. Retract them. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you not see that making a statement such as "The instant you implied someone was using sockpuppets, Philip, the conversation ended.",[4] is different from expressing an opinion "I think you implied someone was using sockpuppets, and at that instant this conversation ended.", because in my opinion the difference is important. Nothing I said accused anyone of using sock-puppets, you have inferred it.

I infer from what you have written that you think any use of second accounts is sock-puppetry (otherwise I think you should have accepted my explanation). I do not hold that opinion, as my explanation should have made clear, I think people can have more than one account quite legally. I think that only if multiple accounts are used in ways which breach the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy is it sock-puppetry. --PBS (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, and I'm certain most of AN/I and AN will concur with me, any accusation of using multiple accounts that is unfounded, even accusations of using them in benign ways, is tantamount to accusing one of sockpuppetry because the use of multiple accounts is very much frowned upon unless the accounts are disclosed immediately. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse anyone of using multiple accounts I asked someone if they used multiple accounts. As I have stated "I think people can have more than one account quite legallylegitimately", do you think that users can have more than one account legitimately? If so, do you agree with the wording of Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Reputation and privacy and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Username#Using multiple accounts? --PBS (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will spell it out for you: UNFOUNDED. ACCUSATIONS. OR. IMPLICATIONS. OF. USING. MULTIPLE. ACCOUNTS. LEGITIMATELY. OR. OTHERWISE. IS. A. PERSONAL. ATTACK. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We are going to have to disagree on that point. You think using multiple accounts is wrong. "Use of multiple accounts is extremely so because doing so is frowned upon at best." (from talk wikinfo). Unless they are used for nefarious reasons, I am not aware of a community guideline or policy which states it is generally frowned upon. For example if you look at Wikipedia administrator#Becoming an administrator you will find the sentence "Although multiple user accounts are allowed on Wikipedia in general, only one account of a given person should have administrative tools. The sole exceptions are by agreement of Arbcom or the community." If you take that along with Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Reputation and privacy and the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Username#Using multiple accounts, I do not see how you can draw the conclusions that you do. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just been reading Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/current and noticed comments by User:Narson "Huh? No IP has admin tools....as for admins using IP addresses, there are legit reasons to use alternate accounts (I use one for example)." and User:GTBacchus "I'm an administrator, and I sometimes edit without logging in. I see nothing wrong with that. If I'm doing anything significant, I log in...." so at least some administrators use alternative accounts. --PBS (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, whether or not there are legit uses for extra accounts is immaterial. The fact is you implied that another user used multiple accounts without evidence. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not imply, (you are inferring that), I asked if they did, and as there is no reason why they should not have more than one account, providing that they do not use multiple accounts for nefarious reasons, it is not a personal attack to ask if they do. --PBS (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

talk

check my talk page, i've answered ur post Asdfhgjgiewiuweroiuwer (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rachel Armstrong

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rachel Armstrong, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non-notable, unsourced bio of fictional character

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jack Merridew 10:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of Rachel Armstrong

A tag has been placed on Rachel Armstrong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Recreation of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hi! Rather surprised to see you at the bottom of the undeleted history here; what was it on the more recent AfD 140 characters? Sheesh. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I recreated it as a redirect per another user's request. Someone else worked on it and expanded it from that. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 11:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; figured it was something like that. I tagged the image and cut "her" from the template — which happened a few other times in the last day or so. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can resurrect the redirect, as it originally was, and semiprotect it indefinitely. Would that work? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip

This past week Blastoise and Jynx articles have been made. Blastoise was made off the hope that a few mentions in magazine would be enough to establish notability, although it is being debated for AfD. Jynx was made because of it being banned from episodes, TCG, and ect, due to the controversy over its skin color, and it has survived so far. I dug up the old Mudkip article and rewrote it in hopes that the "so i herd u leik mudkipz" meme, and it being featured in different polls because of it would be enough to establish notability. I found a few references about it on "knowyourmeme.com" and "blogspot", but apparently those werent good references so Kung Fu Man found new references from dA itself, and The Wall Street Journal. There is a discussion here about it, and since you were one of the people who were the main contributers in that area, would you like to add something to the discussion? --Blake (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against you because the meme has no reliable sources and the NYT source is only a name-drop mention, not enough to establish notability for an article. Also, D-ART is not a reliable source either, for the same reasons other user-generated-content sites are. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. 1. You cant say consensus is against me as I am not bringing back the article yet. There IS NO consensus, so I found that comment really stupid. 2. The dA source isnt for explaining the meme, it is for referencing the bit about everyone's avatars being changed into Mudkips. 3. I was hoping more could be found, but KFM said he searched for 2 hours and found nothing. So I doubt the article will be made. I was just asking for your input on what we did find. --Blake (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

2) The dA source would still be useless because it still references the meme, not the Pokémon, and deviantART is a user-generated-content site, which RS does not accept as a source. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you were wondering what was meant by the "paragraph"

This edit and this edit on the meme. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19

Could you undelete this please? While the latest report may have been created by a banned editor, the many previous reports were not. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I restored all the edits except for the last two (by James Tucton's sock and the clerkbot). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:O Fenian if you are feeling generous though please? O Fenian (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that G5 has the clause no substantial edits by others. However, I will tag it as a G10, as the page's initial intent was to attack. I'm not certain I can get away with a G10 deletion on it, else I'd do the deed myself. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as G10 and courtesy-blanked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-11233

Not that it's of any great importance, but were you able to decide whether that was cluelessness or intentional vandalism? Sometimes I come across users where I'm never able to decide.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain it's intentional, since he disregarded the warnings I left in the second unblock decline and my comment immediately below it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Left_4_Dead_2. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Otterathome (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already requested at WP:RPP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Email on the way

Within the next two minutes, regarding a deletion you just made. NW (Talk) 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Contact a CU privately. NO PUBLIC PAGES IN RE USERNAMES LIKE THAT. PERIOD. That is outing. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mean me :( In any case, I believe the matter is settled? NW (Talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it's settled. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just thought...

that I'll give you a few "best wishes", with this. Enjoy. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What, no cake shaped like an average AN/I thread? :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 10:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas back with a new sock?

I suspect the person recently editing Española Valley High School is another sock of banned user PoliticianTexas, but would like another pair of eyes on it. What do you think? LadyofShalott 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain, but this appears to be a PolTex sock indeed. I'd block it and get an SPI going. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tagged the userpage and started an SPI. LadyofShalott 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy belated birthday!

Hey, Jéské Couriano. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Another GMA Fan sockpuppet

• Here's a possible another User:GMA Fan sockpuppet which is recently made today. --> User:GMA Telebabad.--Witchy2006 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thank You! :) and sorry about the edit war happenned. =P --Witchy2006 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking of RetroS1mone

Just with regards to my block of RetroS1mone, fair enough; I'm not well-versed in block lengths yet, and will bear this in mind in future. The reason I selected a long block length was because of the length of time the user was editing disruptively; my apologies if the length was a bad idea. Colds7ream (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The block itself was a bad idea. You were involved in the An/I thread; you are involved with him and should not have even considered a block. Likewise, Retro was not acting disruptively in the moments leading up to the block, suggesting to me that she was not editing disruptively what-so-ever and that you did no research into what she was doing at all. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 23:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a bit of an aside, since you had originally said RfC above and later corrected it to ANI, it was entirely appropriate for him to continue to be involved after the RfC, per WP:UNINVOLVED. I do agree that after the ANI, however, it would have been better to seek an outside admin's opinion. As has been pointed out to me by RetroS1mone, though, he is a new admin...mistakes are bound to happen and hopefully this will help him improve in the future. --RobinHood70 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking. The new admin says I am editing disruptively, and apologizes for length but not timing of block that imo and i do not want attack any one but it is obvious, it is after I file ANI about the user's earlier templates on my page. Do you have suggestions, how this admin and me can resolve the problem? Thank you!! RetroS1mone talk 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would discuss it civilly witrh him/her if (s)he will let you. Don't resort to accusations, just point out the timing between the block and the AN/I's close and his participation in your RfC (from the looks of it, (s)he blocked you more than 24 hours after the AN/I thread got archived, meaning the block was patently punitive in nature, and was a participant in your RfC, making him/her an involved administrator). Stay level-headed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, also for the good advice, i left a message for blocking admin, i think he is away until September, it is OK bc I will take a break also. My large concern is, i do not want it happen to other editors, i thought i was going crazy, so surreal! You said ArbCom could look at it, what is best way, to be sure blocking admin who is very new and does only have experience in space travel articles can learn about standard ways and reasons for blocking. Thx RetroS1mone talk 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbComm won't look at it; I just said that the ArbComm would at best issue a verbal warning. I can definitely chat with him to explain a bit more about when and when not to block. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion

In light of the recent concerns expressed by RetroS1mone towards Colds7ream, I would appreciate a second opinion about the validity of an RfC about RetroS1mone. Since it was an unusal RfC, in that it was for a pattern of disruptive editing at large, I asked Colds7ream to take a look at it and rule on whether it was a valid RfC or not. I tried to pick an admin in such a way that it didn't look like cherry-picking, but RetroS1mone has pointed out the flaws in my thinking, stating that she believes I picked an inexperienced admin from that list in a deliberate attempt to get her blocked. While this is not at all the case (for which you only have my word), I think I speak for both RetroS1mone and myself in saying that we would appreciate the views of a more experienced Admin on the matter. Given that you were the unblocking admin in her recent block, I think your opinion, whatever it is, would be invaluable. Also note that there have been several follow-up posts by all involved on the RfC talk page.

As you note at the top of your talk page, I welcome input into, and questions about, my own actions in this string of issues as well - heck, I even asked for an editor review at one point, though nobody actually commented on it.

Thanks for your time! --RobinHood70 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm unwatching your talk page now...it's too busy! ;) If you decide to give a second opinion about the RfC, please post a message or talkback on my talk page, or just post to the RfC page. Given that things seem to have settled down for the moment, though, I'm inclined to just let the RfC pass without further comment unless things heat back up again. --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247‎

In regards to your comment about blocking that user's talk page. I have filed an RPP request about just that. This has been going on for 3 hours now and that user just ain't getting it. Several users have explained and they just ain't getting it. If you would, please, block that talk page for the next 45 1/2 hours, it would make my headache go away, I know that :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Howzabout I follow up on my threat and talkblock him instead? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:94.192.38.247

I'd like to remove the talkpageblock you applied to this editor. In short, stubbornness shouldn't be ignored, and I don't think the block is a fair one. Indeed, if the editor is endlessly reciting an argument, such a block is far from ideal. Would you be adverse to my lifting the block? AGK 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not object. Please note that I talkblocked because of what I perceived was tendentious editing, as I had warned against on his talk page; stubbornly repeating the same failed argument over and over in an attemt to wear down opposition is, in my eyes, disruptive. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be using a notion of tendentious editing that is not the one in WP:TE. Could you give me an approximate idea of your working definition of this term? Hans Adler 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I view tendentious editing as repeatedly posting the same failed (non-)arguments despite them having been fully addressed before, repeatedly editing against an established consensus (on an article), or any other style of editing where the only actual method of changing consensus with it is attrition. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that tendentious editing is about NPOV and therefore cannot possibly apply without any connection to an article or encyclopedia topic in the widest sense. I believe the term normally used for misbehaviour that one cannot, or doesn't bother to, find an exact rule for is "disruption". If you stick to that for this purpose you may avoid misunderstandings. It must be incredibly frustrating to be blocked for a reason that obviously doesn't apply when you look it up. And then you can't even ask for clarification! If you are so careless with your block reasons, you deprive them of any educational effect that they might otherwise have.

What remains is stubbornness. I agree: The IP was stubborn; because he was obviously right and it was obvious that all the admins who were fighting him hadn't done their homework. What's the job of a block reviewer? Rubber stamping? The IP was trying to engage the other editors in a policy based discussion; once they reluctantly started reacting to the challenge it became clear that they had very poor arguments (an exception to WP:BLANKING which they postulated). You cut off this discussion. Hans Adler 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the two admins responsible for the current situation are both asleep now. That's a problem with American admins blocking Europeans... Hans Adler 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you made the situation worse with the clueless talk page block, please comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Merci, Gracius

Dude, you have provided me a moment of relief from those vandals. I am in no way saying that your protection of article Marwat is an endorsement of the current version by Wikipedia; however, I would still like to warn you about those single purpose accounts created just for editing the same article. In addition to this as one of the co-creators of article on Marwat I am open to any kind of constructive edits but only after thorough and civilized discussion. Anyway, many thanks for this noble deed for the time being.Xoxo-- MARWAT  15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now what to say? Isn't there any one who can tackle the greatest vandaliser of Wikipedia that is User:Marwatt? User:Marwatt has also started Edit War at Article Anwar Kamal Khan and have inserted the citation tags 3-4 times within 24 hours and is keen to reveert its position. The claim for which he is demanding citation is has been refered and there is a reference proving what has been written there. Despite my continuous pleading that he must read the references before adding Citation tag, he is blindly reverting the article on the Disputed status. The article must be protected and he must be banned, as his intentions are proved i.e. to disgrace and manipulate the notables of rival clan. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 24 hours. He went 4RR on Anwar Kamal Khan at the least. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very thankful, not for blocking him, but for very quick action. Now, when it is proved that he is into vandalism and loves engaging into Edit Wars, especially at the Articles representing the clan he alwyas hunts again, I would like to request for Un-Protection of article Marwat, with assurance that you will find me a good-faith user. I also vow to work positively to enhance Marwat and any of the articles on Wikipedia. The unprotection, after blocking of User:Marwatt will lead him and others strictly obeying the policy and would be working positively onwards. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chummer, I'm not permitted to interfere in content disputes, no matter how bad-faith they are, short of protection and blocks to stop edit-wars. I cannot and will not find someone who is a "good-faith user" to agree with you; that's meatpuppetry on your behalf. Also, the block is only for 24 hours. The protection on Marwat is going to stay until the dispute is over; if Marwatt is one of the disputants I can't unprotect because he's blocked, making it unfair to him.

Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately that's the way it is. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not using any Sock , so how could I be assued for meatpuppetry? In Pakistan we are not assigned a permanent I.P Address, which might be a reason for Sock. But if I it is proved I am using sock, I will love to banned for next 7 years. Anyhow, thanls for your explanation for not unprotecting the article. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is asking other users to involve themselves in your favor and is viewed as a form of sockpuppetry. I'm not accusing you of any form of sock- or meatpuppetry, I'm saying asking me to look for someone supportive of your position *is* meatpuppetry if I do it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for misunderstanding. I hope you didn't mind it. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma

I've noticed you seem to follow or at least be aware of the messes theserialcomma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) gets involved in. He's filed another ANI against Koalorka. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_from_recently_unblocked_User:_Koalorka Some guy (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor whose unblock request you declined now given a 'sincere apology' for his block

I'd appreciate it if you'd chime in at thisANI discussion. I wasn't aware of it until late last night. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Marwat, unprotection request

Archiving; this discussion isn't going to go any further since I'm not allowing any further comments from LineofWisdom.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since the edit war, which was started by unsigned users using different I.P addresses and mainly by two editors, including myself and Marwatt both of us even got blocked and banned, I would like to request un-protection of the artilce, as I am sure none of the editors would vandalise or frankly edit the article until unless a consensus is built. Beside this, I assure that with a warning of long-time banning and blocking, none of the editors would dare to vandalise the article or make any edits without discussing it on discussion page. It would be appreciated, even if the page is semi-protected. Warm regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Be Careful - I would only say that to be careful in listening to this person as he was the one who was blocked for using socks and unnecerarly pacing AFDs on articles. As a matter of fact this user even placed a malafide AFD on the parent article of Marwat which was co-created by me and then it was on my request that it was protected. Its on record that the result of that particular AFD was a Speedy Keep. Unless this user discusses his agenda on the discussion page I would strongly oppose the un-protection of this article, cause I am tired of keeping track of and correcting his vandalizing.-- MARWAT  15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have a brain, I am not mad that I nominate a wonderful article Marwat for deletion. Even a mad person who has once gone through the Wikipedia's rules would never ever nominate the article for deletion. It is impossible, till the world ends, that such sort of article could be delete. As far as using sockpuppetry is concerned, I have never ever used a sock puppet. Despite my frequent challenges no Administrator / Operators is able to prove it, because I never used one. Thirdly, I was never blocked / banned for using Afds. Fourth, the Article Marwat was blocked due to Eidt Warring. You could see that which one of us two was blocked for using Sock? I am here with good-faith, I assure, that's why I requested to un-protect the article. I assure that if I am found in any edit warring, I would appreciate and welcome a life-time block or ban against my I.P. Please appreciate my good intentions and good-faith plans. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• How do I know I can trust you, LoW? Fool me once, shame on you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Shame on liars not on me, wether it is you or anyother. When did I fooled you? Dear, just think claly that couldn't you block or ban me for long time, life time, in case I start edit warring? Tell me! If you can do it then yyou must give us, especially me, a chance to prove my good-faith now. Just trust for a time and I assure that I will betray you. --LineofWisdom (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't cut deals with sockmasters who duped me into taking a side. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• And when was that? Nobody could ever prove that I have ever used a sock. Until unless it isn't proved. One, especially administrators must not cry. It seems you are desperate with some of your family matters and are too puzzle here. Anyhow, wish you best of luck. By the way, after witnessing, infact experiencing the biased attitude of some of the operators / administrators, I damn care of being blocked / banned for whole of my life. ' Just wanted to assure you but you are also one of the negative mind "holder". Wish you best of luck, my dear fellow, may be you realise someday that who was right an who wrong. --LineofWisdom (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• And just for trying to bring my family into it I'm gonna have to respectfully ask you to leave. It was confirmed that you were using sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LineofWisdom/Archive); I'm not going to abet someone who has abused sockpuppets in any form. Good day. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Dude, the guy is bugging me like a pest and is dragging my family as well and has started to use foul language too (go to his talk page). Any action, I leave it to your best judgment. -- MARWAT  02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nor I brought your family here, neither tried. That isn't a prove. That at any cost isn't a prove and a mad one even cannot call it a prove. Even the administrtator is not cleared, while writing it, it is clear by reading out. The user who was accused to be my Sockpuppet has voted and debated against me. He was a taunt to my name and has come in defence of the article, which I nominated for deletion.
• As far as [[User:Marwatt|Marwatt]'s above claim is concerned. I haven't used a fould language so far. But he is insisting on me to change my ethnicity or nationality from Punjabi to Pakhtun. You know what does that mean? Too much than even abusing his entire family. But still I am calm. Help me! --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Liar, liar, and liar. Get the fuck off of my talk page now before I take you up to AN/I; this is your last warning. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried previously to add text here but failed. Just checking whether the problem still persists. :) -- MARWAT  01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. :) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 10:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whyte Lightning

I noticed you speedy'd the page on Whyte Lightning, I was hoping to work on this page and was wondering if you could transfer it to my userspace. Curtis (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Done and done; moved to User:Curtis/Whyte Lightning. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Onikiri

Hello,

I saw that you blocked Onikiri several times six months ago, but I'm afraid he's back to his antics here as 216.184.121.126, 66.249.203.19, 190.57.5.231 and 168.243.218.154 (the last of which he had already used four months ago in the exact same manner, along with a lot of other IP addresses[5])...

Although a bit peeved (it's not the first time I run into him), I tried to explain myself and invited him to discuss all this on the talk page, but he simply doesn't care, apparently: he's just right, and the other editors should give up as their arguments don't matter. At this point, it's vandalism, in my opinion.

What would the best course of action be, according to you? Erigu (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Erigu (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi Jeremy

While I appreciate the need to remove the material, simply shouting in your edit summary may not be as informative as posting a link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for those who watch your page (I assume you replied privately to the user with the original request).

^Bongo_matic 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Normally I'm not asked to oversight; I've asked for oversight myself enough times to tell anyone that I'm not an OS'er. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was, that as an administrator, you have an automatic opportunity to educate editors who watch your talk page.

Watching a talk page, which many editors do after asking a question or leaving a comment, is far more common than reviewing another editor's contributions to see whether (or how many times) the editor has requested access to tools. ^Bongo_matic 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LoW IP sock

Has been confirmed to be LoW. Nice catch.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

Yeah I'm not sure why but the block just went away after a while. I appreciate your help though, thanks :D GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks generally only last 24h, so judging by the contrib history you were already approaching the tail end of it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that explains it. Thanks. I was also wondering if you could, since you're an admin, close out the Aug 31 files for deletion discussion on the Saw image. Here's the URL to make it simple: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_31#Saw_Videogame_Screen_18.jpeg . Thanks again GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that straightforward; you may wanna relist it instead of having it closed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay will do. Thanks again for your time and help. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247 on ANI

Since you were a blocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Jeremy, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help I will be - the only comments I made were that a) an Arbitration (hopefully in-camera) should be filed and b) I was unblocking Russavia to participate in the AN/I thread (The terms of his unblock have since been altered to permit him to participate in the ArbComm case). I am watching the Arbitration, but only to make sure Russavia holds true to his unblock stipulations and to make sure I don't screw up the remedy tally. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

After you unprotected my talk page, I made an unblock request that was granted and then revoked because there was a dispute about the conditions of a topic ban that the unblocking admin wanted imposed and then a denial of another request by another admin who openly admits ideological bias against my perspective, which he falsely depicts as something deviant in nature, and now refuses to respond to my comments on his own statements regarding my block. I mentioned this on WP:AN, but my request was deleted. I was wondering if you could also contribute somehow, since you were involved earlier and were familiar with the case. Thanks. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

About the Vandalism

Honestly? The user I targeted is a particularly dedicated vandal. Who has made personal attacks against me out of the blue if you'd care to look at the history of this page. The user has been banned from editing before, but that was temporary. I emplore somebody, anybody - the user must be banned permanently.

Sorry about the rant, but I don't like it when I get insulted, so the user I targeted is... well, targeted. I'll refrain from vandalising his talk page, but I can't promise that I'll do it totally calmly. Because nobody likes being insulted. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't warning you for vandalism; I was warning you for personal attacks against him. Regardless of whether he's a vandal or not, telling him to go fuck himself and die is a personal attack. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Question

Novickas; I think my indentation makes it pretty clear? Anyway, just because having written a major @ for arbcom I feel like I am in the sharing mood: I am pretty certain your name was never mentioned :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tannim1

With respect to Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) what lie was he caught in? I see little harm in occasionally giving blocked and troublesome users a chance to try out editing again after they had received counseling about responsible editing. Fred Talk 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

During his third unblock request, he had stated that the Tannim1 account had edits dating back at least a year. (At the same time he was making this claim, he was also screaming administrative abuse.) When I looked into it, I noticed that none of his edits, deleted or positive, came before September 11 of this year. Because he'd deleted the first one I'd declined and I was distracted with other things, I rejected the third unblock request on the basis that he was not being truthful. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)