Jump to content

User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

You've got mail!

Hello, Tiptoety. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming I've come to the wrong person? Kurtis (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I have seen the email but have not had time to look into it an reply. Tiptoety talk 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User recently blocked for sockpuppetry just created a sockpuppet and made the same edits

Looks like User:Wikiman 36 is a sockpuppet of banned user User:COD T 3. Same comments, same behavior: [1]. And the account appeared right after User:COD T 3 was blocked. Faustian (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked - Tiptoety talk 00:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!Faustian (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

He's back! The latest sockpuppet is User:Wikirun 20. The history makes it obvious: [2]. Faustian (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Rich Constable

Despite having tried to engage any of the anonymous IPs regarding their edits to the Rich Constable article, none have chosen to enter a discussion about how to proceed with writing it. I do not know if the anonymous IPs are one and the same person, though I'm inclined to think so. I do not wish to become involved in edit war, but am unsure as to how to proceed when dealing with a situation where there's no engagement, references are continually removed, original research is added, article structure is manipulated, and accusations of bad faith and vandalism are being made. The article was blocked the article based on edit warring, but without having not addressed the fact that IP users are not following any protocol. Therefore, with that in mind, and the fact the the block will expire shortly, I wonder what you would suggest as to how to proceed. Below is the list of IP editors thus far involved. ThanksDjflem (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Djflem (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If they choose to repeatedly add contentious information/edit war and not discuss edits on the talk page, the article can be semi-protected to prevent disruption. Tiptoety talk 02:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 August 2014

Hi, I notice that you claimed that this Century Plant Guy to be a sockpuppet of McAusten, User:McAusten, McAustin or whatever you call him. I can guarantee you that he is definitely NOT a sockpuppet of McAusten and therefore probably must be a sockpuppet of a different block user. I know that as a fact because you didn't revoke his talk page unlike a sockpuppet of McAusten's would have their talk page access revoked and also if you look at his contributions, there are no edits on the 2011 AFL season talk page or any edits on archived pages that mentioned McAusten with the edit summary: "McAusten, NOT User:McAusten!". So can you please delete or remove this from his user page: {{checkedsockpuppet|McAusten}} and look into this more further as I can 110% guarantee you that this user is most definitely NOT a sockpuppet of McAusten. Many Thanks for your time, 191.101.71.184 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove the sock puppet sign from my user page?

Hi. Now have been unblocked, am I allowed to remove the notice on my User Page saying I am a sock puppet and change it to something that reflects the topics I edit? Can I also delete the block appeals from my talk page as I don't want other editors to think I am a disruptive editor. Englandcricketteam (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Tiptoety talk 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I would still recommend that this user change their name, as suggested during the original unblock sequence. --Kinu t/c 16:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Hi, I notice that you claimed that this Century Plant Guy to be a sockpuppet of McAusten, User:McAusten, McAustin or whatever you call him. I can guarantee you that he is definitely NOT a sockpuppet of McAusten and therefore probably must be a sockpuppet of a different block user. I know that as a fact because you didn't revoke his talk page unlike a sockpuppet of McAusten's would have their talk page access revoked and also if you look at his contributions, there are no edits on the 2011 AFL season talk page or any edits on archived pages that mentioned McAusten with the edit summary: "McAusten, NOT User:McAusten!". So can you please delete or remove this from his user page: {{checkedsockpuppet|McAusten}} and look into this more further as I can 110% guarantee you that this user is most definitely NOT a sockpuppet of McAusten. Many Thanks for your time, 67.215.7.108 (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Noted. Tiptoety talk 02:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Pepper and Mr. Salt

It was probably a forlorn hope, but I was hoping that I would get an actual answer to the question I'd left on his talkpage.

More broadly, is there any real value to reverting his deletions of "User:"? The former editor's insistence on this change in forgotten archives seems either trollish or emotionally disturbed, but also harmless, and there must be more important things to worry about. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from this, he has no interest in engaging in a rational conversation. It's been tried, and it's failed. I deleted the talk page because of the vandalism they called an unblock request. Tiptoety talk 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. (I still think it might be worth letting the deletions of "User:" go, but meh.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello,sir.I will not vandalize wikipedia but ask you for help.Will it be ok if I add a statement 'Shrestha is upper newari caste and belongs to old newari royal family.' in Shrestha article?please response soon.I am looking forward to your answer.Jojolpa (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS userright

Hi Tiptoety, concerning Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#OTRS Userright RFC. Could you please add me to the OTRS group. I do some OTRS work on en.wiki [3] (not that active, but there to reply to any questions). All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety talk 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other account

Hey Tiptoety, I forgot about this account, User:PrimitiveOne.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 19:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

another sockpuppet

I suspect that this user User:Nerdy Community Dude is another sock puppet of MirrorFreak with a very similar pattern of editing and use of language are you able to confirm?Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm...the editing behavior is suspicious, but the technical data doesn't really support this being a sock. I say we watch it for a bit longer. Tiptoety talk 02:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Theroadislong and Nerdy Community Dude: What makes you think that Nerdy Community Dude is an account of mine?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

Could you please semi-protect GeForce 700 series and GeForce 500 series? This IP keeps coming back with new IPs, and I'm getting bored of reverting them (that, and I'm trying to play Age of Empires II...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lukeno94. I blocked the previous IP for their abusive edit summaries. Looking over the reverts, I'm failing to see the vandalism. This appears to be more of a content dispute than blatant vandalism. Fill me in if I am wrong. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's perhaps not blatant vandalism, but it IS inserting a factual error based on a misreading of the sources by the IP, and usage of unreliable sources as well. This has been pointed out to them many times, and yet they continue with the same edits - which is, essentially, vandalism, since they are constantly adding in factual errors. Block evasion is also a cause for page protection, when so many IPs are being used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, they've come back with another IP, and this is getting ridiculous (it's a good job revert block-evading sockpuppets is 3RR exempt...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I've performed a rangeblock. If that doesn't work, I will look into page protection. Tiptoety talk 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Won't work - the latest IP isn't on that range, and there's two on completely different ranges; 124.82.33.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 124.82.32.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. The article's are now protected. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Flyer322

I see you just blocked Flyer322. It now seems they're back: Flyer422 (talk · contribs). Stickee (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been dealt with. Tiptoety talk 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GeForce 500 series

I need you to unprotect the GeForce 500 series page before I create me an account and block you!!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.89.170 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Threatening to create an account and block me (though not possible), is not a way to ask for something and certainly demonstrates why the blocks and page protections are in place. Once your block expires, you are welcome to request the article be unprotected by filing a polite request here. Tiptoety talk 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Following up on someone else's ping

Erica Blatt Harkins is having a hard time with wiki-syntax and templates and has now got into difficulties with clearing the use of photographs she has uploaded of family members, taken in the 1920s to 1950s, mostly in Romania. I and others have been trying to guide her but at this point she doesn't understand the response she's received from ORTS. I wonder if you could possibly go by her talk page, where you have also been pinged by another person trying to help, and cast an eye over the lower sections with a view to helping her finish the process of establishing that she has the rights to some or all of these images and getting the file pages correctly templated? I'm not sure at this point what she has or has not e-mailed and what she has been told to do. If you can help, many thanks in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Dropping a note to say I have seen this request but do not have time to respond. I'll reply to Erica within the next 24 hours. Best, Tiptoety talk 03:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevant evidence

Relevant evidence at here that should probably be considered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miszatomic, specifically, one example: DIFF1. Oh, and also DIFF2. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RightBKC

The page, you recently moved, is a redirect to itself. Please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a database error with the global rename extension. A Phab has been created here. Tiptoety talk 17:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please adjust block

to prevent this Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you, Tiptoety talk 21:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:RJR3333 likely editing as User:ECayce187

Hello, Tiptoety. I suspect that RJR3333 (talk · contribs) and ECayce187 (talk · contribs) are one and the same, and I've stated as much on ECayce187's talk page. As you can see, he has yet to respond to the matter, and has instead continued editing. In addition to what I stated there about their focus on age 16, they also favor the avert.org source; compare this to this edit. I'm not sure, however, that my evidence is enough to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation; furthermore, the WP:CheckUser data is likely to come back stale. So since you, MuZemike and DeltaQuad were involved in the RJR3333 WP:Sockpuppet cases, I'm asking if one or all of you wouldn't mind looking into this latest case. I know that I mentioned the stale factor, but perhaps one of you have some saved data regarding the RJR3333 account? Or maybe Alison, who was the last person thus far to block the RJR3333 account, does? Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I noticed ECayce187 (talk · contribs) about a week ago and have already ran a check. Like you said, everything is stale and CheckUser was of little use. I'll look into this more. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Tiptoety. In my above reply, I thought about mentioning that you'd recently interacted with ECayce187. And before I read your reply, I was about to ask Dougweller if he wouldn't mind looking into this case (in addition to you or the others I pinged above). I had somehow overlooked or forgotten that he is also a WP:CheckUser. To my knowledge, he hasn't interacted with the RJR333 account, but perhaps he's interacted with one or more of RJR333's confirmed and/or suspected WP:Sockpuppets. Anyway, as you know, data is sometimes kept on prolific WP:Sockpuppets, which is what I imagine keeps getting User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte caught. For example, Alison (because of my suspicion and another person's help via email) recently caught him WP:Sockpuppeting as User:Yev Yev. And the User:Ferberson account was very recently globally blocked. The more ECayce187 edits and the more he ignores the comment I left on his talk about him being RJR333, as well as this discussion, the more convinced I am that he is RJR3333. I don't care if he has matured into a better editor; I notice the same type of sloppiness in his editing that I identified in RJR3333's editing, and RJR3333 was indefinitely blocked for valid reasons. If he has truly matured into a better editor, then he should appeal his block via the proper means. Either that, or edit in areas where he will not be recognized. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, ECayce187 signs his username just like RJR3333 does...with two dashes in the front. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, the two dashes rings a slight bell but not enough. I don't have anything that would help. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dougweller. A lot of Wikipedia editors use two dashes in front of their signatures, but, when it comes to WP:Sockpuppet investigations, signature similarities can be evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
After this edit to the 16 (number) article, nothing can convince me that ECayce187 is not RJR3333, and I've stated so on ECayce187's talk page. I pointed to the 16 (number) article above, and that article is indeed one of RJR3333's favorite articles. And, although I pointed to that article on ECayce18's talk page before he edited that article, I don't think that I'm the one who made him aware of that article. Even if he had only become aware of that article because of me, that still points to the fact that he ignored the WP:Sockpuppet query on his talk page, which is suspicious. I reiterate, however, that ECayce187 is RJR3333. It was previously the case that RJR3333 couldn't resist returning to the 16 (number) article. And that still holds true now. What other editor would focus so much time on that specific part of the article? Furthermore, RJR3333 repeatedly returned to edit the 15 (number) article. ECayce187 recently edited that article.
When I am dealing with RJR3333, I know it. Some of ECayce187's other interests resemble RJR3333's interests as well, including his interest in the Pedophilia article. He might have edited other articles that the RJR3333 account has edited, but the Editor Interaction Analyzer currently is not showing anything about that article overlap, even though they've both edited the Age of consent, Ages of consent in North America, 16 (number) and 15 (number) articles. Either way, I will now be reverting all of ECayce187's edits, per WP:Block evasion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: He's now acting up by impersonating me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the user account name is more so mocking me than impersonating me, but, yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following are  Confirmed socks of one another: ECayce187 (talk · contribs), Flyer1822 (talk · contribs), JMcNeil39 (talk · contribs) and JamesChaille39 (talk · contribs). I've blocked them all. Tiptoety talk 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Tiptoety. Not surprising that he had WP:Sleeper accounts; he always has them. Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we have another one: JRMillar (talk · contribs). If RJR3333 keeps WP:Sockpuppeting at these articles often, should I make a WP:Sockpuppet investigation on this matter every time? Or get a WP:CheckUser to WP:Watchlist these articles? Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely RJR3333 again. In addition to age of consent editing, the JRMillar account has edited the Crybaby Bridge article, and focuses on CNN matters/Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields matters, just like the ECayce187 account. His Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields edits have resulted in a copy and pasted move that needs a WP:Histmerge. The article should also be moved back. An article can only have one name; significant alternative names should be mentioned in the article, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed JRMillar (talk · contribs) = ECayce187 (talk · contribs). Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Euryalus. Did you check for any WP:Sleepers? And, as I pondered above, what should I do if RJR3333 keeps WP:Sockpuppeting at these articles often? Just keep reverting? Keep reporting via WP:Sockpuppet investigations? Both? Ask a WP:CheckUser to keep an eye on these articles? I wouldn't want to keep bothering Tiptoety, you, or any other WP:CheckUser about this matter by going to you guys' talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to email me a list of the articles, I'll add them to my watchlist. Not bothered by talkpage messages either, whatever you prefer. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Euryalus. I'll either list them here or at your talk page. I don't think Tiptoety will mind if I list them here. Some are already noted above. I don't watch all of the articles that RJR3333 watches, so I'll mostly name the age of consent ones and ones that relate to that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, he asked to be unblocked a few minutes ago. That obviously should be done at his RJR3333 account or via email if talk page access is not reinstated for him at his RJR3333 account; it currently isn't. Flyer22 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this and this decline to unblock, I'm pinging PhilKnight and Only to this talk page so that they have the full view of what is going on, in case they don't know already. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You can continue posting here, though your quickest recourse will be to file a SPI. SPI gets a wider audience than my talk page and may get a quicker response. Tiptoety talk 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Just like coming to you or to Euryalus each time, it seems extremely repetitive and tiresome to start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation each time. And WP:Sockpuppet investigations often are not quick, especially when they want supposedly harder evidence instead of simply citing WP:Duck. Then again, reverting him each time is also repetitive and tiresome. Anyway, Euryalus and others, the main articles to watch on this matter are the aforementioned articles (above). He is currently editing as IP 108.192.73.8 and recently used Flyer1333 (talk · contribs) to mock me. PhilKnight, RJR3333 will never accept the WP:Standard offer; he never has, no matter what he states on that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi. Recently I've been unable to edit on WP, due to a open proxy block (IP 185.58.82.6), on 3 February and 12 March. This happens when I'm logged in, using my WP account, using my work internet connection that I've been using since 2013, and this only happened now, in this short period. According to this I ask a IP block exemption in order to be able to continue editing/ not being afected by sistematic blocks. Best regards. Rpo.castro (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rpo.castro, the proxy block was removed by another administrator, so you should be able to edit without issue. As such, I don't see a need for IP block exempt. Best, Tiptoety talk 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My request was in order to prevent being affected by this blocks, instead of waiting a few days for each block until its withdraw. When the rpoxy block is active, how can I request IP block exemption, since I would be unable to edit pages, except my own talk page? best regards,Rpo.castro (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We generally do not grant the right preemptively and seeing as I believe it is unlikely that the block will be put back into affect anytime soon you should be able to edit without a problem. Additionally, it's my understanding that this is a work IP. As a matter of policy, we rarely grant users IPBE for the purpose of editing via an open proxy and given that you have other methods of editing (like from home), it's unlikely I would grant your request. Best, Tiptoety talk 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another RJR3333 sock

Hi, Tiptoety. Per the discussion at the top of this page, you and other admins blocked some socks of the highly disruptive editor RJR3333 in Jan — Feb. It looks like PaulBustion88 is another. JRMillar and ECayce187 edited the most recently of the known socks, 31 Jan and 1 Feb. Not sure you can check from that, but there seems little doubt per WP:DUCK, so I've blocked them. Please see especially User:Flyer22's posts in this thread. It might be a good idea to check for further sleepers. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. PaulBustion88 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed and I located a sleeper, Emyth (talk · contribs) who is now blocked. Thanks for the report, Tiptoety talk 03:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Tiptoety and Bishonen, that's such an old account that it makes me wonder why it was never found before. Maybe the sporadic nature of the account caused it to read as stale? Furthermore, it's so old that it perhaps should be considered the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I won't go into why it flew under the radar for obvious reasons. That said, from a technical standpoint it could be considered the "master account" but from a practical standpoint, it would be silly to change everything over. Tiptoety talk 03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Tiptoety, thank you very much Flyer22, good work. I see the user has promised repeatedly never to sock again. Flyer, you linked me to where he said on User talk:FDR, as late as March 2015, "I have matured as an editor", "I agree to stop using more than one account", "I'll accept the standard offer approach and work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back." So I guess there'll be more socks. I've got some time later, I could write up an SPI, not to ask for anything, as all is clear and up to date, but to have a record and make it simpler to ask for future CUs. Should I treat RJR3333 as master? Bishonen | talk 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Since the RJR3333 account has been treated as the master account all this time, it's probably best to continue to treat it as the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
In other words, it's the more famous username. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
After all, the FDR account is significantly older than the RJR3333 account, but we've still treated the RJR3333 account as the master account. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Well... I think what's more famous is essentially determined at the point the SPI is created. Tiptoety? Do you think I should create it as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FDR? Btw, for what it's worth, I've had an e-mail from PaulBustion stating that he's not user: Emyth. Maybe you have too. I dunno, but he'd have little enough reason to lie about it, as it can hardly make a difference to how hard-banned he is. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
I would continue to file under RJR3333. If a clerk wants to go through the leg work of re-tagging, moving SPI cases and archives around they can. For the most part a "master account" is just a name. So long as the master represents the user's behavior and can serve as a baseline for those who are unfamiliar with the user, then it doesn't matter as much if it is the oldest account or not. Also, I have not received an email from either account. There is little to no possibility PaulBustion isn't RJR3333, the technical evidence is very telling here. Best, Tiptoety talk 15:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Time does fly, I think I'll have to do the SPI tomorrow or Monday. Not that it's a very big job, but still. I guess there's no great urgency now that Paul Bustion is busted. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
Given the articles that Emyth has focused on, and the way he signs his username, here, here, and here, maybe Emyth is not RJR3333. Emyth doesn't use the two dashes. And in my experience, it has proven difficult for RJR3333 not to use two dashes when he signs his username. That second diff-link I provided in this post shows Emyth signing his username with the statement "All the best," right before the signature, which is uncharacteristic of RJR3333. I've also known RJR3333 to be honest about his additional WP:Sockpuppets and to not deny one once it has been confirmed by a WP:CheckUser as being tied to him. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, I personally would continue to use the name RJR3333 as the master account name, given its recognizability/notoriety. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

The Redirect Barnstar
Tiptoety, I hereby award you The Redirect Barnstar for taking the time to rename my user account and move all my associated user pages to pages with my new name. I've wanted this necessary rebranding for awhile now and I appreciate you assisting me in this endeavor. Thanks again for all your hard work! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety talk 02:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi Tiptoety, this is a bit of an unconventional request. You recently patrolled a redirect I created, and although I definitely don't meet the normal requirement of 50 non-redirect articles created, I was wondering if you could grant me the autopatrolled right because it gets quite annoying having legitimate notifications drowned out in a sea of "redirect patrolled" notifications, as seen to the right. I've currently created 131 redirects: [4]. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I will have to decline the request as that really isn't what autopatrol is created for. That said, you can change your notification settings in you preferences. Just uncheck the boxes on things you don't wish to be notified about. Hope that resolves the problem. Happy redirect creating! Tiptoety talk 04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah right, forgot about the notification settings. Thanks! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Champions League

Its not vandalism its referred to as champions league like "oh wicked its Tuesday, that means there's Champions League tonight". No one in thier right minds would refer to it as "The Champions League" thats disgusting. Open it for editing and change it back to how it should be you friggin nerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.182.34 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Another stalker WP:SOCK --- User:Shuriken892

See Shuriken892 (talk · contribs). Really, because of this and this recent matter (I mean my interactions at that talk page), Shuriken892 could be Cali11298 or RJR3333; as you know, RJR3333 has shown up to similarly revert me. And given the way PaulBustion88 (RJR3333's other account) has been acting lately (including sending me two harassing emails), it is likely best to check that account and his FDR account for WP:Sleepers. On a side note: Editors instantly reverted the Shuriken892 account. And, as you might know, I sent you an email earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And on another side note: While I have had various stalkers, and various disruptive ones, the only other stalker as bad as the two above is this one. And I doubt that she's over me, given what she's stated on her user talk page about me and that she was desperate for me to read her emails. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist, thanks for this. Did you look for any WP:Sleepers? He usually has them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved. Thanks Materialscientist. Best, Tiptoety talk 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess there were no sleepers this time? I find that hard to believe. But even if there were, it's not like the socking would have stopped if they were tagged and blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
SkiverDiver (talk · contribs) is another one; see here and here. And here and here. I'm reporting him to you before he shows back up and starts reverting me because he hasn't been blocked yet. Maybe semi-protect the Lincoln Chafee article? It is one of his favorite articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Account blocked and article protected. Best, Tiptoety talk 02:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

78.90.232.207

Yes, the warnings are stale but, They are all for unsourced genre changes without consensus, with the most recent edit today, what, you think I just stumbled across the warnings and decided to make a report ? Mlpearc (open channel) 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mlpearc. I don't really see this as a matter for AIV for starters, it is likely slow moving disruptive editing. With the IP being shared/dynamic I am not comfortable blocking based on only 1 edit today. Tiptoety talk 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Acroterion‎

I think a semi-protection of his talk page is in order. I have seen probably 40+ RevDels or outright Oversights on his talk page. I know admins typically don't like their talk pages protected (easier for whack-a-mole), but enough is enough. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep,  Done. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 21:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Page deleted while I was blocked

Hi, Derick Spears' page was deleted while I was blocked, since the block has been reverted what would be the correct procedure to get this page restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cada mori (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You will need to file a deletion review. Was that an article you were paid to create/edit? Tiptoety talk 02:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, however, his notability has been established. Cada mori (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Confused

Hi. I see you blocked User:Ye Olde Editor With Wings at 23:42, 21 April 2015. One of their disruptive edits, here, was today recreated then aggressively defended here. That editor is now being discussed here. Having been myself told off for "bad" behaviour I don't really want much more to do with this but I wondered if it looked possible to you that it is the same editor. If not, please don't worry and sorry for bothering you. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, this is a  Confirmed sock of either Evlekis (talk · contribs) or David Beals (talk · contribs). Either way, the account is now blocked. Best, Tiptoety talk 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to think what to say. See below. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

More confusing socks

Hi, Tiptoety. I got an edit conflict with you when I went to clean up User talk:Phil Copperman, probably because I took a few seconds to remove tpa first. Anyway, isn't that David Beals? Is Evlekis the same thing? I see you mention them in the same breath above. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen. Yes, you are correct, that is David. He and Evlekis are not the same, but have very similar technical data so distinguishing between the two can sometimes be challenging. Tiptoety talk 20:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think they are the very same. Admission of identity on this edit (so no major attempt to conceal), and listed is Bucksham Corporatvie who is blocked with name of User:Evlekis (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Bucksham_Co-operative). Technical data being similar must surely mean they are the same. --Mario Payne (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What, hang on ... you're telling me that Copperman also was the same?? I'm ... fargled. He was all involved and commenting and G*d knows what. I was a tiny bit suspicious of him but clearly nowhere near enough. Sheesh. And thanks. DBaK (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ffffffffffffffffff.... --NeilN talk to me 00:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this one! bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety talk 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Frogger3140 claiming standard offer, if you have a moment. Yunshui 雲水 11:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Re editing the rugby player's bio

Hello, I didn't edit that page as far as I'm aware. Emmetfahy (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Oh sorry, you were talking to someone else. Ignore the above so. Emmetfahy (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ask further questions

Hello, you are removing my page and I am still working on it, but you have not tried to contact me to ask any questions. It is not a page about myself, it is a page about Matt Galati. My username was just easiest to create without forgetting it. It's quite rude what you are doing and a bit reckless. I would appreciate it if you would stop.

Thank you, GalatiSnipes — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalatiSnipes (talk • contribs) 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@GalatiSnipes: What is quite rude is you creating an article saying that Matt Galati has "plowed 75 girls on campus". Statements such as this violate our policy on biographies of living people and will be immediately removed. I suggest you request the article be created instead of writing it yourself. Tiptoety talk 18:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while...

Good to see you're still on and somewhat active :) Hope you are well. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Steven. I'm well, thanks. How are things with you? Tiptoety talk 18:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm good. Life on the board of a chapter has really sapped my time away from here, so I've not been around for ages, but looking to get back into the swing of things, starting out with DR, of course :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RJR3333 or Cali11298

Doolittle8910 (talk · contribs) is either RJR3333 or Cali11298 pretending to be RJR3333. And if it is RJR3333, then this is the latest example of why the WP:Standard offer no longer applies to him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Jjwikiwikijj (talk · contribs) is also worth checking. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And just in case the edit summary that gives him (Doolittle8910) away is scraped from the edit history (via WP:Revision deletion or WP:Oversight), I am documenting it here: "Undid unhelpful edit done by the kike (Flyer22)." Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Doolittle8910 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as being Cali11298. As for Jjwikiwikijj (talk · contribs), I am declining to run a check at this time as their is insufficient behavioral evidence to justify one. Tiptoety talk 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: I see that you indefinitely blocked Doolittle8910 as Cali11298. So he was impersonating RJR3333? If so, once again he has tried my intelligence and failed. Yes, Cali11298, I don't fall for things as easily as many others. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Tiptoety, regarding this, do you mind running an additional check to make sure no accounts were overlooked (at least as far as the WP:CheckUser tool can tell)? Yes, Cali11298 is a compulsive liar, but he stated, "As a fail-safe procedure, I created another account when I found out that you knew who I was, in case this one got blocked. I didn't edit from that one, until after this one got blocked." The BeastBoy3395 (talk · contribs) account is clearly older than that and has been blocked since May 15, 2015. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I see no reason for me to run another check on those accounts. I will almost certainly be running checks on the same set of IPs as Bbb23 did, which will yield the same results. Best, Tiptoety talk 20:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I asked per what I stated above and because I have known WP:CheckUsers to come up with different results. The fact that WP:CheckUsers might come up with different results is why a WP:CheckUser will volunteer to run a check after a different WP:CheckUser has done so. But since you trust Bbb23's check, I will instead ask a different WP:CheckUser via email. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Noting this here since I was in the process of noting it at the case page before Vanjagenije archived the matter: "Update is here; despite the WP:CheckUser results, I'm certain that he is currently editing under a different account. Blocking that account or any others he currently has wouldn't have helped much anyway. And as seen with this case, he can confuse the WP:CheckUser data." Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
See this latest matter if the WP:Ping for it didn't work. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I ran a check. The IPs involved are not really helpful in making a determination. Tiptoety talk 19:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Gothenburg Coat of Arms talk

Hello Tiptoety, I was a bit dismayed to find that you deleted the talk page I created, labeling it "vandalism". Although the wording might have been a bit silly (which I figured was OK for a talk page), I think I posed a valid question that immediately springs to mind at a first glance at the Coat of Arms of Gothenburg.

58.132.170.77 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@58.132.170.77: I don't see how such a topic has anything to add to an encyclopedia entry on the Coat of Arms. Talk pages are intended for collaboration related to the improvement of the article, not for general thoughts or "silly" comments. Thanks for understanding, Tiptoety talk 07:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re Tannis Vallely

Sorry for the less than stellar citation, and my addition deserved the reversion. But I humbly ask if this is enough? Either way, no great biggie. Sincere thanks!

https://www.facebook.com/jerry.beck/posts/10155697078510578?comment_id=10155697803735578

–TashTish (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi TashTish. Looking at that link, once again I see Facebook. Facebook is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference for content in a Wikipedia article. Instead, I took a look over the article linked to to on Facebook, Gothamist.com and see no mention of Tannis Vallely anywhere in the article. I'm afraid I don't see how the Gothamist article can be used as a source for your addition. If you can find an independent reliable source, I don't see any problem with your edit. Tiptoety talk 02:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Totally fair enough. Apologies again. –TashTish (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize. Happy editing, Tiptoety talk 02:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Protect please pages Cyclotron and Talk:Cyclotron (much block evasion recently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.193.140.164 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I protected Cyclotron but not the talk page. We try to keep talk pages unprotected and currently I do not see enough disruption to justify protecting it. If there continues to be disruption, you can request the talk page be protected at WP:RFPP. Tiptoety talk 08:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an aggressive formerly banned user known for trolling in Wikipedia, who started edit wars, and deleted well referenced sources and important basic information. He changed his ISP (internet service provider) to avoid his original identity. HE will not dare to register a stable account in wikipedia, because his editorial history and troll behavior would become known. He often change his dynamic IP. Please restore the article, and leave it protected against this noxious Ip troll. Thank you.--Against formerly banned user (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Stubes, you aren't supposed to edit Wikipedia either. Please email me with the account that IP is related to. Tiptoety talk 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I must have pressed something too fast and modified back from indef for 31 hours. Thanks for fixing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Tiptoety talk 18:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Joe Toney year of birth category

Hello. It seems that you added Category:1942 births to Joe Toney but the first line says he was born in 1946. Should I change the category to say 1946? 12.180.133.18 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, must have been a typo. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 18:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what this is?

Greetings, Tiptoey. I'm not sure if we've interacted before, but a few minutes ago an IP posted this message on my talk, and pinged you in it. I was wondering if you knew what was going on (posting here because I'm unsure if you got the ping, they've been unreliable lately). Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vanamonde93, nice to meet you. Looking at the article history, I can't quite place it. That said, I work numerous sockpuppet investigations and have performed thousands of administrative actions, I can only assume I once dealt with a group of users targeting that specific article. I'm not sure why the IP left you a message, but either way you can probably just disregard it. Happy editing, Tiptoety talk 09:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! The IP does not seem to be doing very much, anyway. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent Trews Edit

Sorry, the timeline actually hadn't showed due to errors in the template, and I find the sandbox more confusing that trying it on the actual page . . . Thus, they resulted in several edits that were "tedious" for lack of a better term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.164.137 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Concern about user McGeddon

A user named McGeddon has removed a Talk page post and a couple of edits I made without giving any reason. Can you please let me know what the reason is for the removing and how I can prevent them from being deleted in the future? Tampico1 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ILiriaALB

Hi Tiptoety. We have another sock. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Blocked - Thanks, Dr.K.. Tiptoety talk 09:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tiptoety. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is User:Emyth All the best, Miniapolis 01:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Albany Police Patch.gif

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ashland Oregon Police Patch.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jackson County Sheriff Patch Oregon.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lane county patch.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons ping

Had mentioned you with respect to the latest User:Mughal Lohar sock on commons. Just as fyi, in case you don't check your notifications there. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I check Commons, replied there. Tiptoety talk 19:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Use Oversight on Zzuuzz Please

As you can see from the history, Zzuuzz & his friend do not want to address bmk vandalism on this page. Your assistance is appreciated. Thank you 47.20.221.176 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Help. Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests

On November 17, 2013, User:Beyond My Ken first began editing this article. He arrives declaring "scandal" is too harsh a word for a Jamshed Bharucha administration riled in controversy. Not only does he change the title of the article, but after changing the article puts a npov tag on it claiming it only shows the POV of the protestors en route to 23 changes that day (with no effort to work to remove the tag himself). Meanwhile Robert Bernhard's story is effectively buried. As chairman / chairman "emeritus" since 1995, Bernhard was the primary person in charge of finance when the operating deficit (aka "financial crisis") first manifested in 1995 (per downloadable content presented by consultants to Chairman Richard Lincer).

After 11 more contentious edits by bmk, I first edited the page, adding sources on 3 April 2014, which prompted even bmk to admit that the article became more neutral. Following this, I added a section "CU Administration Views" with many quotes from high ranking admins. Even bmk agreed this was appropriate.

Despite 26 more edits from bmk, I'm the one who had to add (on July 24) to this section that 5 trustees, including former chairman epstein, vice chairman de menil & president bharucha, resigned.

When I next checked the article, bmk was engaged in an edit war with User:jm3. Since bmk insisted on citing "diverseeducation.com" and only "diverseeducation.com", I sided with jm3, who wanted a more complete picture of what was happening (though even jm3's version lacked several key provisions of the Attorney General settlement and still neglected to mention Robert Bernhard). I made a revert from bmk to jm3. When bmk reverted both myself and jm3, I warned him on his talk page that he was engaged in disruptive editing and an edit war. Then I was banned for .. making 2 appropriate changes to the main page of CUfcatp (that's the only main page I edited).

Obviously bmk is an admin sockpuppet given he has committed a litany of bannable offenses at this page and receives a free pass & protection when he does so. I'm perfectly willing to step away from the main article as long as "ignore all rules" bmk does the same.

Thanks

Ferociouslettuce Talk 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

originallypostedtoponystalkpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.14.54.44 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Hey Tip

Hope all is well - surprised to see you request your removal of the bit Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised too. Hope all goes well. bibliomaniac15 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
All is well (not planning on leaving forever, not disgruntled). I simply don't have the time I once did for Wikipedia and don't want my idle account to sit around with so many advanced permissions on so many projects. Thanks for the kind words, Tiptoety talk 10:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear. I don't like having my wiki world up-ended all the time by solid reliable editors leaving. Perhaps a little selfish on my part, but I'm self-indulgent every once in a while. Best wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Same here. Thanks for all your service. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 Tiptoety, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day.
Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tiptoety. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Police cadet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Police cadet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police cadet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

  • Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
  • Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
  • Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
  • Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

A possibility of the return of Kim Cardassian

Tiptoety is no longer active on the project, so there is no point in continuing this here, particularly if he still receives email pings for updates to his talk page. The evidence here is extremely thin, but if you wish to pursue an investigation, Boomer Vial, please take it to SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Hey Tiptoety. I seen that you participated in the SPI investigation involving the above mentioned blocked editor. I know it was a long time ago, but I was curious as to your opinion to if Power~enwiki is a sock of Cardassian. I don't want to ping them into this converstation, as they have a tendency to exhibit battleground behavior when confronted. I notice that "~enwiki" was a reoccuring theme in the aformentioned SPI case, and since Power~enwiki came about, I've seen a large uptake in accounts with this phrase. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, and in advance for your response. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 03:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Since this editor has been inactive for two years (I really should've checked before leaving this), I'm bringing administrators that I know are active to the conversation. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm not familiar with Kim Cardassian but that doesn't strike me as at all likely. Power~enwiki has been registered since 2003, which would be very long lived for a sockpuppet. The "~enwiki" thing was added as part of the introduction of SUL, if I remember correctly if users on two wikis had the same username then the most active one got to keep it and the other one had the wiki name (this one is enwiki) added to it to disambiguate. [5] This means it isn't surprising to see old accounts with few edits with "~enwiki" after the username. And you don't seem to have any other evidence. Hut 8.5 07:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Boomer Vial: I was pinged here from [6]. I'm not familiar with this sock master, as they were last active before I started editing actively. However, I can confirm that the ~enwiki is actually a result of WP:SUL finalization. When two accounts on different Wikimedia projects had the same username, they were unable to be unified globally, so what the WMF did was force those users to rename their accounts, and OriginalUsername~enwiki happened to be the default template for English Wikipedia accounts. Due to this, I don't think the username can be used as a behavioral idiosyncrasy for the purposes of identifying sockpuppetry. You'll have to find more specific behavioral evidence. Mz7 (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Mz7 Hut 8.5 As well as moving articles without an explanation, they seem to focus on AfD, and their subsequent logs. Looking at the creation logs for the sockmaster, and the sockpuppet shows that a lot of the socks were created before the deemed sockmaster. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomer Vial (talk • contribs) 7:58, 22 December 2017 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:LAVALE.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking indef'd IP

Just as a heads up, I think you accidentally indefinitely blocked 73.9.140.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in mid 2015. I've gone and unblocked them, but let me know if there was a good reason for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

... and miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Olcc.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

hey ... per request -

  • Q: Knock, Knock
A: Who's there?
  • Q: Donja
A: Donja who?
  • Don ja miss us yet?

— Ched (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

another knock knock joke

P1: "Knock knock!"

P2: "Who's there?"

P1: "Joe."

P2: "Joe who?"

P1: "Joe Doe. John Doe's brother."

I'm very original. –apap04 talk | contributions 22:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks noticeboard header

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks noticeboard header, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks noticeboard header and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks noticeboard header during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Izno (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Gee and haw for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gee and haw is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gee and haw until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Oregon Health & Science University Police Badge.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Oregon Health & Science University Police Badge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing

Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sar123.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sar123.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon) until a consensus is reached. tedder (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Gresham Police Department (Oregon)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gresham Police Department (Oregon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Gresham Police Department (Oregon) until a consensus is reached. tedder (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ashland Police Department (Oregon)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ashland Police Department (Oregon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Ashland Police Department (Oregon) until a consensus is reached. tedder (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 17 § Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) until a consensus is reached. tedder (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_37&oldid=1226441239"