User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

A barnstar for you!

		Civility Award
		You could have easily blocked me for the mistake I made on the AN/I board. You didn't. Thank you. Keystoneridin (speak) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I could've blocked you, but that's neither here nor there. You were letting your frustrations get in the way. That's dangerous ground on which to tread. I'm sure your going to take a valuable lesson from the situation and, barring unforseen blips, be able to avoid similar situations in the future. Regards Tiderolls 03:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI regarding Erin Burnett BLP issues

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Sayer - Page Notes

Hi,

I have contacted one of you editors with reference to removing the two notes on the above page. I have rewritten it and added sources, what else do I need to do to get these taken off?

Many thanks

Radavie (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises

I was giving the reason for my edit. That's the point of it. Discussion had already occurred amongst the edit summaries and I was only trying to help by providing my insight. The matter has since come to a compromise. QValintyne (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tide rolls. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ebikeguy (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

58.7.138.14 returns, does the same things again, describes himself as "the internet troll"

[1][2] --Niemti (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And more: [3]. He was politely warned, at length, on that page last week. bridies (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, folks, but I am at work presently and cannot give this matter the attention it deserves. I recommend that the situation be raised at WP:ANI for prompt action. Thanks for your diligence. Tiderolls 12:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At it again, from another IP: Special:Contributions/58.7.55.27. bridies (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wheel hub motor, again

Hi Tide (Gosh, I love saying that),

It appears that our POV IP editor is back to his old shenanigans on Wheel hub motor. See this recent diff. He is editing from a different IP address, but it is clearly the same person. I will take your good advice to heart and not allow myself to be drawn into an edit war this time, but if you have a moment to help out, I would appreciate it greatly. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 86.131.167.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 81.129.112.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) need to be blocked. They obviously want to make a contribution, but it's clear that every edit will come with a personal attack attached. It's also clear that this person has no intention of resolving the content disupte; they're going to anonymously edit war and attack editors until they are blocked. They're probably hoping to draw others down to their level along the way. The personal vendetta is obvious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am working up an edit warring report at the noticeboard right now. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection of Wheel hub motor. That might be sufficient, since they indicated they have a user account that they don't want to reveal, or is blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My entry at the 3RR noticeboard is up. Please contribute if you wish (both of you...). Also, I noticed that they locked up the page in the spammed-up state, but we will fix that soon. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ebikeguy..Hi, Dennis. I'm once again forced to make my apologies for being at work and unable to particpate in any meaningful manner. Fortunately, this project operated for years before I registered due to the diligence of editors such as yourselves. After checking into the various links given it appears that some calm has been restored and, hopefully, the individual behind the IPs will find some way to participate within our policies and guidelines. I will always make my best effort to act on any request made here, but knowing that there are processes in place to address most issues is reassuring. Thanks Tiderolls 23:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. There are other editors who keep us from making too much mischief. Moohoohahahaha, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Tiderolls 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dafuq you on about

I do not edit wikipedia, and no edits have been made from this computer. Get your facts straight.

81.154.111.133 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because your IP address has changed to that used by a vandal in 2009. Was not a mistake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jasper. My tête-à-tête with the water of life this evening would render any response from me unconstructive in the extreme. 2009 prompts a "Dafuq"?...wow. Tiderolls 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ya know, that's not a bad idea. Not bad at all. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:AIV

Hi! Regarding my AIV report, the user had attempted to vandalize a dozen times, but they were all disallowed by the edit filter. I tried to make this clear in my report by saying "Please see edit filter." Best, Electric Catfish 21:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Ah, so there were no edits. That's what I thought. Tiderolls 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you can be blocked for repeatedly tripping the edit filter. Electric Catfish 22:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

hey

blahhhhh blahhhhh blllaaahhhhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glivaja (talk • contribs) 09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Luisana Lopilato

If you had checked the article talk page you would have seen that there had been discussion about the subject's name previously. Before removing cited content you should express your concern on the talk page. Regards Tiderolls 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Tiderolls, traditionally the common practice in Argentina is to register only the paternal surname in the birth records (or only the maternal if there is no recognised father), so the common usage is to refer to people by a single surname. Lopilato's actual name used by the artistic landscape worldwide is Luisana Lopilato, and her legal full name is Luisana Loreley Lopilato. The problem is that American media fall mistakenly into the use of two-surname personal appellation which is practiced in most spanish-speaking countries (of course excluding Argentina).

In Surname and Hispanic American naming customs, here Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia states Argentina has been an exception on the use of two surnames, since traditionally only the father’s has been used. Sourced as per «Constitución de la Nación Argentina», Buenos Aires, Ley 18.248. Nombre de las personas (Name of People). Art.4.

Personally I think the actual name should be removed and corrected in order to place the subject's legal name as state in IMDb.

Cheers,--Fercho85 (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent email

Thanks. The information you pointed to was enough, I think, to make the connection very likely, and further investigation made it beyond all reasonable doubt. As for your question about use of off-wiki information, as far as I am concerned, if I see convincing evidence of a blockable offence then I will block, and if the on-wiki evidence is supplemented by off-wiki evidence to make the case more secure, then that is fine. (Of course, I am referring here to off-wiki evidence of unacceptable on-wiki behaviour, not to taking action against an editor purely because of off-wiki behaviour.) However, there is the question of what evidence can be revealed if an action is questioned, and sometimes that is less straightforward, because of the outing policy. Since it is not always clear to me what off-wiki information can be revealed, I tend to play safe by not revealing it anyway. However, that policy refers to publicly posting information, as I read it, and I see no reason why information should not be shared off-wiki (e.g. by email) with responsible participants to explain the reasons for action. That's how I see it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Codename Lisa = Vandalism

Please, block a user Codename Lisa, because, he removed RTM release date from Windows 8 and blocked my IP Address (77.121.210.102). And because, user Codename Lisa is Vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting, multiple times, the vandalism to my user page. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts# Request for Comment: Pro wrestling. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mike Sweeney (DJ)

FYI: According to a note left on my talk page, Sweeney requested people vandalize his Wikipedia page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. Yep, I saw. Tiderolls 07:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All cleaned up before I even hit save. :) Jim1138 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Tide rolls, I heard that you are interested in flags and I myself am a passionate vexillologist, so please tell me, what is your favourite flag in the world? I have many that spark an interest within me but the one that springs to mind at this present time is that of Nepal as I am very fond of the unusual, irregular and yet unbelievably un-rectangular design of the flag, which is unique in the world of national flags. Also, keep the great Wikipedia articles going my friend, you are doing a fine job. Yours truly, Youdonthavetoprovide (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong about my edit?

You reverted my edit without any reason. 80.193.186.101 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is classed as vandalism, that's why! As usual, Tide Rolls is right!--5 albert square (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment was meant for Tide Rolls. Thanks. 80.193.186.101 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Random Thanks

Just a drive-by thanks for keeping an eye on the VT page. Hope to see ya on the field :) Arkon (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It would be an epic game, I'm sure :) Tiderolls 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Scott

The details of the Open are not necessary for the introductory paragraph. If you want to mention the Open, just say "Scott has also finished tied for second at the 2011 Masters and second at the 2012 Open Championship." It's elaborated on later in the article, having "he bogeyed every hole while winning" at the start of the page is basically saying "Adam Scott is a huge choker and this is the only defining moment of his career." THAT is non-constructive, not my edit. Thanks.2.31.10.142 (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history I am at a loss as to why I reverted you. Sometimes the script I use does not display the page one is actually editing and mistakes can be made. I am not blaming the software, there are other ways for the operator to be aware of the situation. Until this instance I have been able to catch the error and make my own correction. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and your patience in dealing with it. Regards Tiderolls 12:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for attending to the vandalism of my page, which occurred while I was not logged in. I As this has happened on wo occasioions recently, almost certainly by the same user albeit using different new accounts, I have semi-protected my talk page. Just for your information.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony. Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't butting in unnecessarily. I realize that you are capable of maintaining your own page, but with some edits I am unable to restrain myself from stepping in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 21:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by Still-IP

He has a history of following my contributions everywhere so he had the need to comment issues however minor or trivial it was. The whole point however was to harass me anyways.

• 1. [4] Him as an uninvolved party. This was supposed to have been rolled back using the TW script however I clicked the wrong thing. Nonetheless, no one objected anyways even the IP editor.
• 2. [5] Him as an uninvolved party. This was over the case of an IP vandal which is well documented in the talk page of that article who has been wiping any criticism of North Korea. An administrator had already commented that the well is poisoned so any sources from North Korea should not be taken seriously. The IP vandal was blocked temporarily.
• 3. [6] Same thing above.
• 4. [7] He posted his clear intention of not heeding to my request of staying off my own personal talk page and that he will continue to keep doing it.
• 5. [8] Him as an uninvolved party. At first sight, it appeared to have been vandalism but it was later a mistake. However the term would have been roll back anyways to the correct naming convention.
• 6. [9] Again still uninvolved in those edits.
• 7. [10] He dragged me into WQA which ended up nowhere and it was obvious that he started coming up with labels to label certain editors as a "cabal". From that point on, he would just accuse editors of edit-warring.
• 8. [11] He was commenting on my involvement in an ANI against another user which he ignored my request to stay off my talk page.
• 9. [12] He assumed that I was making a POV change when in fact I had reverted a POV change that he made himself.

Now I'd like a ban against him to stay off my talk page. I do not go harassing him on his talk page on EVERYTHING he does. ViriiK (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, ViriiK. First, I will leave a note on this user's talk explaining this situation. I hope you understand that when you effectively "ban" someone from your user talk you limit their options. Instead of being able to approach you WRT their concerns, they are forced to seek comment from other users regarding your actions without your input. Having said that, I would strongly advise you to avoid any interaction with this user. I'm not sure that I could follow my own advice in this regard, but I can tell you that if you cannot let this kind of thing go, any enjoyment you derive from contributing here will be lessened. If you require further clarification, let me know. Regards Tiderolls 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. However I have avoided this user at all cost which he's used methods of trying to bait me into responding to him in hopes of getting a GOTCHA moment. For example, I had two inactive projects on my user page (which are on my watchlist) which he edited there in order to coax a response out of me. See: [13] [14] Plus he has a habit of putting his comments higher than mine when replying to another user. To put it plainly, he does not care about the fact that I told him to stay off my talk page REPEATEDLY. I do not reply to him whatsoever in my personal talk page other than leaving the reason of asking him to stay off my page. ViriiK (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know. I removed an offending piece here which was a huge undue weight to the article which you can see here. [15]. The problem was that Chick-fil-A donated $1,000 to this organization but donated a million and half to another organization. However the FRC was the one that was singled out. I thus removed it to restore it to neutral phrasing unless someone can make one up for the Marriage and Family Foundation. Still proceeded to revert me which I reverted back to neutral tone (1RR) even though I'm not even at any level of RR because I was removing biased views. He then proceeded to accuse me of edit-warring on my talk page again [16] which I reverted and he did it again [17] claiming I was at 2RR when I was not (1RR at the very most). This is coming from a user that has been blocked for 4RR (He'll tell you all about how the 4 admins unfairly prosecuted him when they rejected all 3 of his unblock appeals). ViriiK (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is a bit less than accurate: I was blocked for alleged 4RR when in fact there was no 4RR. But, hey, keep talking about me, not about the fact that you're edit-warring. When you edit war, I have the right, and even obligation, to warn you on your talk page. The fact that you keep deleting these warnings only makes you look worse. I have asked you to revert yourself and you have refused. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are free to remove warnings from their talk pages, and doing so implies nothing. See WP:OWNTALK for a list of what a user is and is not allowed to remove from his own talk page. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125 / Belchfire

On ANI ViriiK wrote "He has a habit of harassing me on my talk page which I've told him to stay off my talk page constantly" and you replied "I'd need to see diffs to help you ViriiK, but that might be better accomplished posting to my user talk." You might be interested in the following diffs.

Still-24-45-42-125: "This just reeks of desperation and bad faith."[18]

Belchfire: "Please keep off my Talk if you don't have legitimate business here."[19]

Still-24-45-42-125: Taunting.[20]

Still-24-45-42-125: Question/criticism ("Oh wait...")[21]

Belchfire reverts without comment.[22]

Still-24-45-42-125: Watching Belchfire's sandbox, quoting conservapedia.com.[23]

Belchfire: reverts without comment.[24]

Still-24-45-42-125: WP:CIVIL accusation (IMO the cited comment(diff) was not uncivil), "Don't do this again unless you enjoy the ANI process."[25]

Belchfire: reverts without comment.[26]

Still-24-45-42-125: More criticism of Belchfire.[27]

Belchfire: "Please stay off my Talk."[28]

Belchfire: "I'm getting a little tired of being followed around and harassed by this other

editor..."[29]

Still-24-45-42-125: "The crux of my disagreement with you is over your statements about liberal bias..."[30]

Belchfire: "Go away"[31]

Still-24-45-42-125: Warning (non-template) about edit warring (actually it was 2RR for each of them) and uncivil edit comment.(diff)("Stop harassing me. Next time it goes to ANI.")[32]

Belchfire: "Stop harassing me"[33]

Still-24-45-42-125: Drops another warning[34]

Belchfire: "Stay off my Talk, please."[35]

Still-24-45-42-125: "I get to post here as often as I like so long as I have good reason."[36]

Belchfire: "Go away"[37]

Still-24-45-42-125: Arguing about refactoring[38]

Belchfire: "Discuss it somewhere else, you are not to use my Talk for this purpose"[39]

My involvement happened when their war spilled over to WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you, Guy. Tiderolls 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To comment, it isn't just myself or Belch. He's also harassing an administrator here [40] [41] which you can read the discussion there for yourself. ViriiK (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

By my count, there are three administrators and two dispute resolution volunteers that Still-24-45-42-125 has accused of wrongdoing so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that the administrator I'm "harassing" openly admits to stalking me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guy, at this stage this is far more than as your capacity as a DRN volunteer; you've been involved in numerous discussions about Still in multiple venues. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am now withdrawing from the conversation Wikipedia-wide. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem

I have a problem and it's not ViriiK.

A while back, I frankly told Guy Macon that his efforts on WP:DRN were counterproductive. The gist was that he was just counting heads instead of trying to resolve anything. Anyhow, that doesn't matter. What matters is that he took it very, very personally and started doing what he did just now: following me around and doing his best to help everyone who might harm me. This included collecting out-of-context diff's and sharing them, as he did here. It also included coaching ViriiK and the WikiProject Conservative posse on how best to get me blocked[42].

If you look at the history of my talk page, you'll find that his behavior got creepy enough that others started telling him to just back off, and he even said he would, but he just couldn't help himself. Monitoring my talk page, he saw someone ask if I was British and responded by trying to WP:OUT my location[43]. I pointed out that his behavior was unacceptable[44] and he responded by scrubbing his talk page[45], as if in recognition of his guilt.

Since then, he's left me alone. Until now. As you probably saw, he was brought up by someone else in the context of that false 3RR report against me, and now he's back to his old behavior. He even knows he can't control himself, which is why he asked for an interaction ban.

Since you seem to be in the business of telling people to back off, I'm wondering if you can encourage Macon. In fact, I'm quite willing to give him his interaction ban; there's no reason he should have anything to do with me.

As for ViriiK, I don't see how he can ask me to leave him alone when he jumps in on any report I'm involved in to gripe. If he wants me to leave him alone, he has to start by leaving me alone. And, even then, it's not going to stop me from reporting him for genuine violations. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The post that Still-24-45-42-125 is complaining about is here. The post that he characterized as "coaching ViriiK and the WikiProject Conservative posse on how best to get me blocked" is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you spend all day copying down URL's so you can share them? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And, more recently, you canvassed to organize the effort against me.[46] Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It would appear the you have some difficulty in observing accepted convention, Still-24-45-42-125. No matter really, if you want to spread discussion all over God's creation it makes little difference to me. I foresee a very short discussion. I've told no one to "back off" WRT the current situation. I've only attempted to explain predictable outcomes that result from the less than exemplary behaviors I've witnessed. You can take my advice or you can ignore it. Frankly, I don't understand why you are not embarrassed by your conduct illustrated in the diffs above. You can rest assured that I will not waste any more of my time trying to explain how your approach will fail you. Tiderolls 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't help to notice that you said nothing about the Macon issue. Guess I shouldn't expect you to. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Another administrator is being unfair! What are the odds?

So far, still-24-45-42-125, has falsely accused me of violating WP:OUTING, WP:STALKING and WP:CANVASSING as well as "trying to harm him" etc. Despite repeated requests to either file a case at WP:ANI or stop, he continues to make false accusations.

Still-24-45-42-125 just posted to Belchfire's talk page again after being asked not to seven times and after seeing the discussion on this page:[47]. Belchfire reverted it without comment.

But worse than the continued harassment and battleground behavior, I do not believe that still-24-45-42-125 wants to improve the encyclopedia. All the rules he breaks are in the service of pushing one side of the conservative/liberal battle and to punish and discourage anyone who gets in his way. In my opinion, it is time for administrator intervention for the good of the encyclopedia.

Once the inevitable escalating series of blocks commences, I believe that we can save time and effort by recycling the responses Still-24-45-42-125 gave to the last admins who blocked him and reviewed the block:

"Rules are for suckers; you [the admins] just make this stuff up as you go along, singling out whoever you like. ... I do not accept this block as legitimate. Feel free to abuse me some more for speaking my mind."[48]

"These administrators appear not to even understand, much less care about, the rules they're supposed to be endorsing."[49]

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, your behavior has gotten past the point of stalking. You're actively campaigning for admin intervention against me solely on the basis of your hurt feelings.

Remember when you finally took the advice of third parties who suggested that you should disengage? That was the smartest thing you've done. Why did you backslide? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And, just for the record, Guy, you really ought to think twice about leveling accusations at me when you're guilty of them. For example, you were asked not to comment on my talk page, but you've been commenting anyhow. How is this better than my commenting on Belchfire's? Keep in mind that I'm running into him on various articles so I have some reason to communicate with him. You have no such excuse; you're meddling because you have admitted that you're angry at me.

As for outing, I should have just reported you. You published what you thought was my real world location and that's never acceptable. But, hey, I thought your reaction showed that you had the good sense to disengage, so I didn't bother chasing you around.

Now you're chasing me around, posting quotes taken out of context and generally agitating for admins to block me. Fuck it, I'm reporting you for the outing now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OUTING attempt and harassment/stalking by GuyMacon; mutually requested interaction ban

User talk:Dennis Brown#How to solve this.

User talk:Still-24-45-42-125#Bluff.

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

trololl lol

Ermahgerd (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)