User talk:RandomXYZb/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Please note that if you are leaving me a message about an article which I have deleted, please leave me a red link to the article to help me easily locate it and reply to your query.

Gooddays

Yea, I'd say a strong mess like "This is your last chance, any further violations of account policy, or major violations of other Wikipedia policy will result in an indefinite block and termination of your editing right". Your choice on exact words of course. MBisanz ^talk 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note at SSP:Netkinetic

Thanks for asking us to keep away from each other. Any insight on how that's possible with him stalking me? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CrunchEl

I see that you closed this SSP report quickly. If it was still open I would have added User:PriesltyKnight to the list of suspected sock puppets. FYI. Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 'Clovis' article -- reasons?

About 1 week ago my student Leoscript posted a page linked to the Clovis disambiguation page that was about a business named 'Clovis'. This was deleted as spam almost immediately by RHaworth. Leoscript then asked a polite question on the discussion page for the Clovis disambiguation page. Now the discussion page seems to have been deleted as well.

I asked on the new posters Help page what had happened, and they wrote that Gb was the admin who deleted the 'Clovis' page. So I am writing to you.

I can understand if the deletion was due to the article not meeting the 'notability' standard or being insufficiently neutral or something like that. But it was deleted by RHaworth as 'spam,' and this article clearly was not spam. (For example, there was only one posting; the author was clearly and accurately identified; the posting contained no malicious code; etc.)

I realize you are busy, but is there a way that a new user can receive a clear statement of why the article was deleted?

I would provide a 'red link' to the article as you requested, but the article, the link on the Clovis disambiguation page, and the discussion page have all been deleted. I do not know how to find or link to the deleted article.

Paperswamp (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)paperswamp

George Ducas

Yes, I suppose it could be Ducas himself editing his own article but you never know. Whoever that IP is, they're doing damage to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that works for now. I've had his page on watch for a while now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Monobook Blank ASAP

Can you please blank my monobook? I cannot log into my real username unless the book is blanked. Thanks.--RyRyBot ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I'm RyRy5. And do you have any suggestions on RyRyBot?--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, nice meeting you.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Libellous sockpuppetry

You forgot to sign your comment on my talk page, so I had to hunt to find out who you were! Anyway, thanks for dealing with this. My gues is that this vandalism, almost certainly the work of Runtshit, will be repeated daily. I have once again requested indefinite semi-protection of the page; this was refused last time I requested, on the grounds that there was "not enough activity". RolandR (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tyar

Several users have brought to my attention that this is a sockpuppet. Except I can't quite pin him as such, does his behaviour indicate the edits of a vandal? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that he's a sock, but he is being disruptive, so I have blocked accordingly - he has "form".... _GB^T/C 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked else someone to reply here. Even a great editor like Collectonian says he is a sock [1]. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced, but with everything that's happened lately, I have an extremely low tolerance for possible socks. He was definitely making personal attacks, and was right at the edge of being either a purposeful vandal, or a kid that just didn't get it.

In addition, as soon as he stopped contributing, this User talk:86.44.26.69 popped back up again, who has had contact with both of us. I'd keep an eye on him, too. There's certainly something going on. Redrocket (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonder

Could you do me a favor, and lock my user-page?SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't around. Someone else helped you out, by the look of it. For future reference, asking at WP:RFPP is probably the best bet. _GB^T/C 08:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Jeske was able to do it for me. But, thanks none the less!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Another libellous edit

Please block User:Bojungles2, who has made the same libellous edit to Neve Gordon. RolandR (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Enjoisktboarding2

Thanks for your help on the sock puppet case of Enjoisktboarding2. Although I fear he has ignored your warnings. He has deleted your comments from his talk page, and another mysterious user named Smoltz29 has popped up. Also, Enjoisktboarding2 has gone back to his old ways of deleting content from Clemson Tigers men's basketball for no reason, once again trying to incite an edit war.

I'm not new to wikipedia, but for the most part I stay out of the administration of the site, this is the first time I've really had to rely on the rules and procedures to deal with an issue. If you could help guide me on how I should handle this guy, his threats, his sock puppetry, and his edit war mentality, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks again for your work so far! Jober14 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

re:WP:SSP

I'll be sure not to do that in the future, but I'm fairly certain you're talking to the wrong guy here. Avruch was the person who actually in all of the section headers. AniMate 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No biggie. We both have names that begin with "A", mistakes happen, blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. I choose to look at it this way: I've just learned something about sockpuppet reports I didn't know. Thank you. AniMate 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays 2

Erm User_talk:Gooddays when do we start talking longer/harsher measures. I'm not seeing him as being here to contribute. MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, I noticed that you recently addressed this report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Creamy3. I have suspicions that these are coming back in the form of User:Flakes41 and User:Chet lovers lover. Creamy3 was a fan of The Wire, and like User:Creamy4, Flakes41 voted for Creamy3 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 2 despite the notice that Creamy3 was indefinitely blocked. Is this pretty clear or not? Should I file a sockpuppet report for community consensus? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will do so. Thank you for addressing these particular instances! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please check User:Flakes41 again? He has made an unblock request which seems plausible. Perhaps you may have had a false positive. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ejanev

Well, the ip editing continues [2].--Laveol ^T 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Flakes41

Thanks for the message - I've reviewed my original decision, and stand by it. Reasons include :

• His names fits the profile for Creamy3 sock/meatpuppets - although I accept that in and of itself this isn't exactly a smoking gun.
• He voted in support of Creamy3 here, four days after Creamy3 was indef blocked, and ignoring a message to that effect a couple of lines up.
• Here he added himself to the list whilst removing Creamy3 at the same time.
• He didn't mind when another editor vandalised his userpage.
• He shows up adding himself to this page, as had Creamy3 and Creamy4 before him.
• Ditto - the only other editor he's ever left a message for is here, where Creamy3 features heavily in the recent history.

Too much, in too few contributions, to be a coincidence, in my view. The unblock request isn't particularly plausible, but is precisely the sort of unblock request I'd expect a sock to come up with...anyway, I'm happy for you to have a look and draw your own conclusions. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that reply together. I'm convinced and the unblock request has been declined. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

failure to assume good faith, and encourging disruptive behavior

Well I guess if you try hard enough, you can twist and turn everything into an anti-Calton statement. I am not British, and have never heard of the ton=100 slang until you brought it up here. Give me a few weeks, and I'll show you how Giles Bennet is in fact a some contortion of the same. Frankly, I find you lack of good faith, as well as one-sidedness, appalling. As you note, several editors (I count at least 3, other than myself) , who have opposed Calton on that article, yet for some strange reason, you come here to warn me, not Calton, about edit warring, and on Calton's page, rather than telling him to cease his disruptive behavior, you encourage him to continue and oppose me, while making baseless accusations of sock puppeting against me. Please review your own behavior in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yeah, I agree that it's obviously a sockpuppet -- and given that argumentative style, I'm pretty sure whose, so I can even suggest an IP number to check against -- but the evidence may be too thin to convince the checkusers. I might try tomorrow morning after I get some rest -- I'm still not over the flu yet -- but thanks for the heads-up. --Calton | Talk 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

It's my page (I recreated so don't delete again) —Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of jehangir aziz article

Hello. I had recently uploaded an article of Jehnagir Aziz, the firs grunge musican in Pakistan to come on National Television. I think the article was pretty decent to be on wikipedia. Can you please tell me the reason as to why it was deleted so I may fix the problem?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Remedy122 (talk • contribs)

Poison

How isnt there enough vandal to justify it?? Please take a look and re-think, I laughed when I saw your comment. RkOrToN 14:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats the point for semi-temporary, to stop vandal behavior. RkOrToN 14:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete Salvation Union of South Ossetia

Hi Gb, Ldingley was first blocked for copyright infringement but then given a second chance but was blocked again when he tried to hide his copyright infringement. He also tried to evade his block with a sockpuppet see the discussion here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Gb. My concern however is that this article is unsourced and created by a user with a history of copyright infringement. Any suggestions? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give folk a chance to provide sources, I've put up an unsourced tag. What would you recommend as a time frame to provide sources before going to an AFD? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, in case you might want to add something to the discussion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Lang / Brandon Link

Gb, you recently deleted an article relating to Brandon Lang / Brandon Link. There has been an ongoing edit war for the past few days and I would like to resolve it. I would love to speak or write to you personally to resolve this issue. I think I could provide more information that would convince you that this is a relevant article.Vince1973 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Vince1973

Further to this: User:JPMcGavin recreated the page Brandon lang, though I don't know how similar the content is. nneonneo ^talk 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

...and it's been speedied, rendering my previous point moot. nneonneo ^talk 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Palmer-Ridge sock case

Hey there. Just wondering: did you protect the user pages involved in that sock farm at all? Because the sockmaster just started doing his thing again on his talk page, so I've indef-blocked and protected it, and expect him to move on to the others shortly if they're not protected. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Andeggs

Andeggs (talk · contribs) has placed an unblock request on their talk page. Seems their IP was blocked as having been used by Davxs (talk · contribs), an indef blocked sock. I don't think that Andeggs is the same user as Davxs, so you might want to check this out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Bridwater indef block

Hi. I had previously blocked this account following an AIV report that the account was blanking another editors (User:Chris19910) userpage. The editor in question confirmed that they had permitted Bridwater to test their tools, and I then unblocked - pretty uselessly, as I failed in my first two attempts at lifting the autoblock. I was then contacted by Chris19910 who advised me that he and Bridwater and a User:Carol Sutton had been reported for possible socking.

I should be grateful if you could advise me on what basis you executed your block. The blanking of anothers userpages has been dealt with, and users are permitted to delete/blank their "own" pages. I am also curious - but by no means annoyed or anything! - why you didn't (wait to) contact me before acting. It may be that Bridwater will need to be unblocked to participate in the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910 matter, but I hope you will review your block anyway. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? That is pretty much how I arrived at my block decision - and I didn't wait for responses from anybody else before performing it either. I think I will again suggest to Bridwater to not blank pages so often in future, to avoid such misunderstandings. I will leave the SSP report up to you, although I think Chris19910 is the party that needs to have some input if needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue Chip Expert

For my capstone business class we have been studying the job placement market and how it is shifting to adapt to technological changes in the economy. One of the areas of the market we have been doing research is on different companies that are affecting this change, many of which have articles written about them in wiki i.e. Monster.com, Yahoo! HotJobs, CareerBuilder.com, LinkedIn, Simply Hired, Indeed.com, xing, est…) If these other companies have articles written about them there is no reason that Blue Chip Expert would not also have an article. You deleted the page for “blatant advertising” however the site is a locked site and the only way a user can gain access to be invited from another member. I did not specify anywhere how to get access nor did I promote the company. I took information written in CIO, Business Week, CNN, and other sources and wrote an article about a company. If you could please explain how I can gain access to the code as well as unlock the article I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.Djkwk7 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On my discussion page you mentioned that “it was deleted because it failed to show notability (unlike the articles for the other companies you cite)”. However after looking at the definition of notability I believe that it more than meets the requirements, especially when compared to the articles of the other companies I cited. Notable sources that I believe meet the notability requirements include: CNN, CNN Money, CIO.com, Business 2.0 Magazine, Blue Steps and more. Also in the guidelines it asks that the admin put a {notability} tag and allow the editor to correct the issue. Also you asked if I had my email enabled, and I went to my account and it does have my email address listed so you could email the code there for me. Please let me know your thoughts as I believe that this article should be re-activated.

Thanks, Djkwk7 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

• Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {notability} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {subst:dated|notability} tag.
• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {expert-subject} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.[8] Otherwise, if deleting:[9]

• If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
• Use the {prod} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see ::Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
• For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable

Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]

Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]"Wikipedia:Notability

Please review my response regarding your deletion of the article Blue Chip Expert on April 17th. I believe it meets all notability requirements especially when compared to similar articles. I wrote a detailed response below yet have not heard anything back, I would much appreciate it if you would respond to my response further down on your page. Thanks Djkwk7 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

Nice to see you up. I think you remember me. Can you please participate at this subpage? Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers until later.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to see he didn't have the balls to respond and had to get his friend to talk for him. The discussion was closed after two votes. I guess we will never know how it would have turned out because you people closed it. Wikipedia needs me. Goodandhonestwhig (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would reply, but you've been indefinitely blocked, so I can't really be arsed... _GB^T/C 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks, I havew realised that this has cause a lot of mess and therefore I am going to take on your advice and use an edit summery in the future to avoid such problems like before. Also i see there is a sockpuppet case against me which is not really valid but I am willing for things to take their course of action Bridwater (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PeterTrial.com

Hi, Im Vincent LaRocca, and have my entry to wikipedia marked for quick deletion. It was never my intent to self promote, only to add a piece of medical marijuana political history to wikipedia. I apologize for any infraction I might have done while trying to do this.

I do have a personal interest in petertrial.com, after it expired I was disappointed it became used for financial gain as opposed of that of it's original purpose, to shed light on medical marijuana issues. So I bought the domain name with the purpose of restoring back to original purpose

I have since deleted any references to myself or the new website --Vlaroc (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)----

1. REDIRECT PeterTrial.com

PeterTrial.com Instances of Notability,Significance,Validity Check out the new website, and you'll see it's not designed for personal or company promotion, only the promotion of a memorial to Peter McWilliams, continuing his crusade.

--Vlaroc (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlaroc (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 

Erm...okay. _GB^T/C 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

trance.nu

Hi Gb!

Notice that trance.nu was deleted. Please be advised that i spent a lot of time researching their Cd-releases (references to discog), their ASOT commitment which reach over 6 million listeners monthly as well as referenced statistics from second sources. I totally respect that wiki should not be a link-collection, but in this case i'd say its big enough to be worthy of a spot here. Is there any way to get it republished (with any requested changes) or is this final? Best regard --Tompalomp (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the answer. Would it be ok if you restored it onto my userspace so i can work a bit more on it? I think a lot of this boils down to my unacquainted wiki-knowledge and how to write content on here. Ps, does it matter that is has been denied before, are that taken into account? Or can i freely republish it when i feel happy with my changes? Best regards, --Tompalomp (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking after 1 warning

Hi. I'm just starting to go through the history of User:Noahveil so that I can assist this newcomer, and I'm concerned that you blocked the account after it had only received a single level-1 warning, without even giving the user time to reply. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education and warnings, states that "administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." They are not meant to be used punitively, which this appears to be (and it started a trend, for this poor newcomer) (the unblock requests weren't all for new blocks, my mistake). Possibly there is some aspect or context from that time, that I cannot readily see, and if so, my apologies. If not, then this is just a reminder to take a breath and assume good faith, whenever possible :). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The problem as I see it, is that from his perspective, the timeline could be as follows:

• He started editing in Oct 2004, and made about a dozen edits.
• He was then given a welcome template, in Nov 2005. So he continued to make edits, that he thought were helpful, for the next 2+ years.
• Then suddenly, on March 29, 2008, he is given a uw-advert1 warning at 08:45, and then the account is blocked by you at 09:27. That's only 45 minutes later. And it seems to be punitive, and primarily for edits he had made more than a year prior.
• (I hadn't seen the Jan 2008 IP-talkpage warning, but there is no indication that he received it either)

Apart from the timing issue, there is also the concern that this is primarily a COI issue, not a "spam" issue (in the usual commercial-link sense, which is what the template warnings he was given (including the warning at the IP talkpage), all imply from their wording). And of the various editors and admins he has tried to get advice from, only Orange Mike actually gave him any real assistance.

Now, not all of his edits were helpful - some were just to satirical webpages - and I will point that, and a few other things, out to him in my next message on his talkpage. And I am fully aware of the dire battle Wikipedia does with spam, both the selfish-commercial-link type and the well-intentioned-but-improper-link type. And I can see that the AIV report was misleading. But I hope you can see, that helping new users become good WP editors, is vastly preferable to blocking them without discussion, especially with our current high-barriers to entry (and especially when those new users are enthusiastic professional writers).

It's more complicated, but context always needs to be taken into account.

Thanks for listening :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd welcome any feedback you have for me, on the advice that I have given Noahveil so far. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello again I've just made a friend who is new to Wikipedia, and needs a bit of help with the ropes. He has just managed to get a page locked up on practically his first day. I told him to keep cool at all times, but perhaps you could help him with the etiquette stuff. Best, K West one girl (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Hey thanks for protecting it. You wanna make it one day and give it a shot? If you have to redo the whole protect to do that, don't bother, but I think it help sometimes to just let the vandals blast away. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Zealotry

Hello Guido,

Thank you for offering to help. Since writing my article, I have heard from several Wikipedians who are upset at the way the place is run. Perhaps they represent a small minority -- I have no idea. But as a newcomer, I must say I have been taken aback by the way I was treated when I tried to edit the Naomi Oreskes page. I was, of course, also taken aback by the bald partisanship on the climate change issue.

Do these types of concern resonate with you, and if yes, can anything be done about it? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Recovery

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For rescuing Luigison V. Doran from speedy deletion.] Dlohcierekim 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: UAA

Because it has the term "KickAss" in it, which doesn't seem like an appropriate username. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I caused an inconvenience. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good to hear. :) I've read the username policy a couple of times, but I guess I should research it some more. Thanks for the heads-up. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:NumNull

Apologies, I thought I had written it underneath. Feel free to rollback my edit. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not meant to be centred. I think it is one of the Signpost issues messing it up. I was going to let it archive away, but it doesn't seem to want to archive for some reason.
/me goes off to checkMⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 10:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just so you know, {{helpme-nq}} is a preformulated template for if someone hasn't left a question. If you use that, it gives a link to #wikipedia-en-help, and gives the helpme requestor more options. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK?

I'm RyRy5 if you remember. I may consider making Mike Trujillo a DYK. Is it ready? Also, I can't tell if the article is over 1500 characters long.--Ryan (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommended administrators

Hello, i have created a section on my userpage for other users to find administrators recommended by me. I would like you to add yourself to the list so it can have your unique signature! Please use ~~~ to add yourself, as this will omit the date. If you do not wish to be on the list, thats okay! I respect the choice of every administrator/user on wikipedia. Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. _GB^T/C 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For all your help Guillaume! A little present from Swinging London. West one girl (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sawrhea...

Won't do in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy Sawdust (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

re User:Freaky Fishes

Hi, thanks for your message at my talkpafe. From a very brief review of the matter, it appears that my block was following a report to AIV. As such I believe it to have little bearing (other than to demonstrate possible bad faith in editing) to any sockpuppet allegation/fact. I feel that you should act according to the results of the sockpuppet investigation only. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weeks (author)

Kevin M. Weeks, an autobiography which you deleted on April 13 [3], has been recreated by the subject as Kevin Weeks (author). It is the same text as before, but with a slightly different name--I assume this is meant to confuse and fool WP editors. It should be deleted under both names, and possibly salted. Thanks for your attention to this, assuming it isn't already speedied away before you get this message. Qworty (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:BoxCrawler

Thank you for blocking the bot. I misunderstood which category was being requested, I've corrected the problem. I would like to complete the run and would appreciate it if you would unblock him. Thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user Agdsgasdghahjasdhgsda

Hi, can I ask why you blocked User_talk:Agdsgasdghahjasdhgsda, without asking them to change their name? Username policy is going through some change at the moment, but some editors feel a complex name isn't enough to need an instant block. The only edits the user had made were good faith. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. _GB^T/C 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When you blocked that editor "confusing" wasn't a criteria for blocking; there was a notice at the top of UAA saying this. There is no guidance on the account creation page about not picking a confusing username. As I said, policy at the time of the block was clearly saying "do not block" for confusing usernames. Even the policy as it stands now says "The purpose of a username is to identify contributors. If your username or your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. However, confusing usernames are unlike the disallowed usernames above because a confusing username cannot be so inappropriate on its own that it requires an immediate block without at least an attempt at substantive discussion.". Please, I urge you not to block good faith contributors just because they have confusing usernames. What harm does that username do to WP? There's some discussion of confusing usernames happening on the username policy talk page. I'd welcome your thoughts. Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weeks (author)

Kevin Weeks (author), which you speedied [4], is up for AfD [5], and you may wish to comment. Qworty (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

!Voted, thanks. _GB^T/C 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I didn't know! I use Huggle and it warns automatically! --Creamy!^Talk 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Komodo lover

Hello Gb. See User talk:Rlevse#Komodo lover about a new checkuser filing. I guessed that you must be one of the people who follows these matters, because you did the indef block of User:Mr. Loner. Feel free to add anything to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Komodo lover. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While wandering through the sockpuppet archives, I noticed that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (3rd) included User:69.86.92.251 as one of the socks. You blocked the others named in this report, but not this one, so I did so. Just want to be sure the omission wasn't on purpose :-) EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

need expert advice

sorry for the inconvenience but i wish to confirm my doubts, i was wondering if cropping an image from a book cover and posting it on WP is considered a copyright infringement? thank you for your time ;) Eli+ 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

how about this non free picture, I'm really not sure i think it "fails to satisfy the policy"21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenteisai

Re your recent block of User:Tenteisai. He also edits from User:99.132.177.200 and he has been causing repeated problems from that IP account too., and did so again after I gave him a final warning and after you blocked User:Tenteisai. Refer to warnings I left on User_talk:99.132.177.200. Could you please block that too. Thanks. -- David from Downunder (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Query about User:Plate King's block

Hello, I saw that you have blocked this user. Is there any link that proofs this user is sockpuppeting? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was interesting. I always find Plate King's edits constructive and not really POV-pushing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:Plate King

Thanks for User:Plate King. He was on our user manipulaton list and we are glad you blocked him. Our IP spoofer is working really well. We can also tell you that we are not really spottedogsdotorg, since that person was proven by us to be Scott Brown, a mentally ill person in Pennsylvania who tried killed himself earlier this year and has been placed in a secure facility for the indefinite future. We had a bit of fun and tried to imitate him and see how many people we could get caught up in bans thinking they were Mr. Brown. We should add that Mr. Brown was brilliant in his attack stratergy of blaming someone else, especially someone he had issues with, and the work of this idiot savant seemed brilliant and if taken to the next level by someone with actual brains and technical know how it could be a way to destroy Wikipedia from within.

Our true target for banning is actually Bradley aka User:Qqqqqq. We have posted his address and e-mail earlier and will again in the future. See, our goal is to get good Wikipedia editors to go away, so killing off User:Plate King just furthers our agenda of destruction from within. So it is nothing personal against Bradley, it is just that we are trying to thin the Wikipedia user pool one user at a time. Oh, we also have an admin account, but we aren't going to tell you who that is since that would be telling. That, of course, we use to get our info for our IP spoofer and other things which we shall not get into, such as the deleted mad ramblings of Mr. Brown. We are not stupid enough to use it to actually go and ban people, since that would be dirty pool. We shall tell you that you have made us very happy in banning one of our current character's accounts, for those of you in Rio Linda it is User:Libro0. (Yes, we just gave you a clue as to our real identity if you are collecting clues as to who we really are.) We want you to catch us and ban us, but the game of cat and mouse, pretending to be others, social engineering passwords, pissing off users is too fun. Of course we are using "we" since User:Plate King used it and we want you to think we are actually him or is it actually because there is more than one of us doing it? Which one is true? Both? One? Neither? Playing with your little minds is oh so fun and oh so easy. Plus TOR is a really brilliant thing. It is much easier than slogging about and finding open proxies, but that is not to say that we still do not use them. So yes, this was written from a TOR node, so go ahead and block it. Who knows, one of our alter egos may just go and do that. You do not know the half of our trail of destruction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.25.101.173 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, behaving in a limp-wristed dramatic fashion on Wikipedia. How original and clever. This is so very new and impressive and important. These Iago-esque schemes have my rivetted attentionzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... - Vianello (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case on WP:AIAV

this case, I can easily prove that it's an open proxy. Would you rather I show you how with Firefox, or IE? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I've found online (I don't have Mac OS):

1. First off, go to ipchicken.com and note your IP address before doing all of this.
2. Go the the Safari menu at the top of the screen, and click Preferences.
3. In the window that pops up, click Advanced (with the gear icon) at the top of the window.
4. Click on the button Change Settings by "Proxies:".
5. Under "Configure Proxies", select "Manually". Select "Web Proxy (HTTP)" from the list below that, to the left. On the right, under "Web Proxy Server", there are two boxes. In the big one, insert 202.47.69.219 and in the little one, insert 1080
6. Click "Apply Now", and then open up ipchicken.com. Your IP address should now match the proxy address.

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SDLexington

Checkuser did not show this user as being a sock of Kristy22. Basically said the user wasn't. Do you have additional proof. Either way tag on user page is incorrect. --NrDg 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett

There's a clear conflict of interest if that's who he claims to be. I still stand by it is vandalism: a) if according to him one reference is incorrect, it made no sense for him to remove the ENTIRE reference section. b) the 2008 protests section had undergone scrutiny before and was found to be factual, to the extent the source provided. Removal of the entire section gives the feeling that he is denying the fact it happened and c) massive removal continued after warnings were placed in the talk page - it's not his first account nor edit before so please don't tell me not to bite him.--Cahk (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know where you are coming from. However, this is NOT the first time he attempt to steer the article in non-POV direction. I've nothing against him but his edits in the past have been disruptive and non-responsive to others who tried to help the article. --Cahk (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

the used

the used page was locked until an agreement between me and silverorion could be made on how the genre paragraph section shud be, we have now reached an agreement as shown here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:The_Used#PROPOSAL ...so im asking if u can unlock the page. USEDfan (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

it does not appear u are online right now so ill try another admin. USEDfan (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the help. USEDfan (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)