This page is an archive of past discussions for the period July 2006 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Couple of most recent edits seem ok. Added IP and article to watchlist. Also please add warnings to IPs talk page after reverting vandalism. Petros47119:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The IP address has been blocked for one week and new account creation from that address disallowed. Please place a new message on this page if they persist after the block expires. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
70.81.117.175(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) -- This user has a history of inserting false information with regard to race/ethnicity in Canada/Canadians, most egregiously in the form of blatantly false statistics and misrepresenting government statistics (speculatively/subjectively interpreting them/doing original research). Most recent vandalism of this kind: [8] They were blocked several times in the past, and have slowed down this activity but it persists. I'm also concerned that they may have falsely added ethnic categories to hundreds of Canadian bio pages and were not reverted. I wasn't sure if I should report it to long term abuse (trying to figure out how exactly this whole system works). User stated on their talk page that they "have an account": [9] - no idea if true or what the user name is. heqs08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been following 70.81.117.175 for quite a while. It is my belief that their account that they refered to is User:Alm93. Just browsing this users edit history you can see a similarity, but the best proof is that Alm93 created and populated the Scandinavian Canadians category (example edit of populating this category, see their edit history around the same time for tons more edits adding people to the category) and the category got deleted by User:Lankiveil and then User:70.81.117.175 left this message on Lankiveil's user page refering to that category as "MY PAGE". Qutezuce08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
20:24, 13 July 2006 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "70.81.117.175 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term vandalism). Archiving. --ZsinjTalk03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
(multiple ip addresses) I have a free to use forum called Autographs R Us (http://freddie1968.proboards98.com/). It's purpose is to help fellow autograph collectors with all aspects of the hobby and also includes an authentication guide. I figured adding it to the links section in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Autographs External Links would be a good way of letting people know the forum exists. Since it's creation, the link has been repeatedly vandalised or deleted by different ip addresses. This results in me having to revert the link back. I have even tried rewording on occasion hoping that whoever is doing this would not recognise it immediately but that has not worked. Can someone please help me identify who is doing this and stop it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucylou (talk • contribs) 16:34, July 19, 2006.
Archived. The multiple IP addresses are justified in removing the links; please note that links should not be added to articles simply to notify visitors of the website. For information on what links are acceptable, please see the style guide on external links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Registered users
lostsociety(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) User lostsociety has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see this and this as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the Bambu page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( He also posts under the IP 24.215.229.224 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Lostsociety claims they “called Miguel Y Costas” and found out that Abadie papers were discontinued. He says this because he works for Bambu, who has all of their papers made by Miguel Y Costas. However in the USA, Abadie is a trademark of Republic Tobacco (a competitor of Miguel Y Costas), and it is certainly not discontinued. This was only posted so that he could justify removing Abadie from the rolling paper list to make Bambu the top slot.
Lostsociety has posted 14 images of Bambu papers and products. Each time he makes incorrect claims such as “image from Bambu website”. However the images are not found on the Bambu website and are very clearly promotional images
Lostsociety continually reverts and posts promotional language such as “Bambu papers are the best in the world” type comments (Bambu are the #1 selling rolling paper in the Carribean, Bambu are the #1 selling paper, Bambu is the last independent company, Bambu rules, etc..). He continually adds these comments to various rolling paper pages (Bambu, Rolling Papers, Miguel Y Costas, Juicy Jays and others, and undoes anyone’s changes that removes or alters this promotional language
Lostsociety posts slanderous and defamatory text on brands that compete with Bambu.
Lostsociety posts under 3 names, all with the same IP address and all have the same tactic of promoting Bambu papers above all others
When cornered, Lostsociety tries to deflect blame by saying that people who revert or alter his promotional language & image posts work for Bambu competitors (yes, it’s all one big conspiracy against Bambu, this is classic caught-blame-others psychology).
I saw this edit after the warning, however, this user is only using his/her IP address to continue this activity. On Abadie, a content dispute seems to have formed, but WP:RFI is not the place for content disputes. 3RR doesn't look like it's being violated, so I'm archiving. --ZsinjTalk15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to here for the full story behind all this. Not really sure that there is much point to this report here, as much of the saga is happening there, with quite a few admins allready commenting and/or acting in the situation. - TexasAndroid19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
User:CmdrClow has repeatedly removed warnings that I have placed on his Talk page, even after I have warned him for removing them. He has edited my comments on article discussion pages, and left unsigned comments. When I advised him, politely, to always remember to sign his comments he proceeded to remove what I said from the article's discussion page. He believes that if he labels my warnings "personal attacks" then he can remove them. I have warned him repeatedly, and I would like someone to investigate this situation and take the most appropriate action. If you could respond to my talk page with the outcome of your investigation and final decision I would appreciate it. Thank you. Bignole04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Amykocot(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - I've come across a sophisticated spammer who has done the full range of spamming - images, blatantly advertisement articles for (minor) companies, link-spamming and even promotional categories! They are obviously quite aware of all kinds of wikitricks, including making a null edit to their user page so they show up as a blue link (grrr) and getting rid of speedy deletion notices. Unfortunately I was the first one to apply the "spam" warning template to their talk page so it may be quite some time before they end up stopping or being banned. TheGrappler06:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Be careful though - this user operates in bursts with gaps between, and demonstrates this pattern of editing from between June 2 and June 20. Another burst is likely soon - somebody needs to keep an eye on this user's contributions. TheGrappler17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. This is a lot to go through. I've read over the linked user talk pages and am currently going through the articles. In processing --ZsinjTalk02:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
After looking over a great deal of user talk pages and discussing with other editors, it appears Sta4k is a new user getting targeted for not knowing everything she probably should about WP. She is getting stressed and when that happens, other people get involved and complicate matters further. This is not vandalism, but I'm not sure where she should be refered to. --ZsinjTalk02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Messages left on both user talk pages. If User:Hoopaholic400 (aka Amit) continues to vandalize Whizkidravi's (who has already stopped vandalizing) user page, then Hoopaholic400 should be blocked for personal attacks and vandalism (diff links are in the message left on Hoopaholic400's talk page). --ZsinjTalk00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Banned right before this timestamp for 24 hours for vandalizing botu Whizkidravi's and my user talk pages. --ZsinjTalk18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
AOL account(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) This user has been removing vandalism warnings, and leaving this in the edit summary: "Removing old warnings, per WP:AN". The link goes not to an official policy, but to a discussion where this user unilaterally announced that (s)he was removing all "old" vandalism tags associated with AOL accounts, despite no other users or admins concurring in his actions, and despite one other user pointing out that what this user was doing is, in fact, vandalism. We need an admin because there are "well over a 1000" pages that now need to be reverted. --M@rēino19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I raised similar concerns in the discussion at WP:AN. I noticed at least one example where a block notice was removed while the block was still active and another where it had expired less than an hour before. This looks like it falls foul of the vandalism guidelines to me. I'd like another admin to review, though. Gwernol19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case I suggest you try DragonflySixtyseven, or Pathoschild, along with 99% of the RC Patrollers who are by now aware of it, in the mean time, I'm going to continue doing so, because even in the very worst case scenario, it's allowing me to compile the first ever comprehensive list of active AOL users, something that's been lacking for a very long time--AOL account (205.188.116.200)20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides, these changes are neither radical nor unprecedented, the only thing unorthodox about it is the scale on which it is being done, literally every single tagged AOL user to ever edit Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, all of this great big comprehensive list of AOL users who have edited, ever--AOL account (205.188.116.200)21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The user claims that there have been bans "based on warnings that are anywhere from weeks, to months, and even years old, in some cases blocks are even being issued on IPs that haven't edited in days", but doesn't provide any examples. I wonder why? Andjam23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Because that would annoy the people who placed the blocks? Becuase most sysops will eventually admit their error and unblock, and there's no reason to beat a dead horse? Because it happens so often I never thought anyone would bother to dispute it? Because that has nothing to do with an already established policy of removing pointless warnings that are at least several years old? Because I did everything in accordance with existing policy regarding AOL talk pages? because I only reported it to AN/i before hand because I realized it would be flooding recent changes for a few hours and thought people might like to know why this was happening?--AOL account (205.188.116.200)23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
But you are not just removing warnings that are several years old. In some cases you have removed warnings about blocks that are still active. It appears to be an indicriminate removal of all warnings from all AOL IPs. While some of them may not longer have meaning, its certainly not true that they are all outdated. It is also a violation of the vandalism policy. Gwernol23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not, when you leave a warning on an AOL talk page you may as well be leaving it in the middle of an article, they hardly even qualify as talk pages, warnings that are only a few days old are no more or less relevant than those that are hours, weeks, or days, they'll never reach the correct person, the same thing goes for a block notification, the correct person will never see it--AOL account (205.188.116.200)23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible Solution? Now that there's a list of active AOL clients, wouldn't it be the best possible solution to have Crypticbot archive old sections regularly? I may not be infallible, but an archiving bot on the other hand.. ..thoughts?--AOL account (205.188.116.200)01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Archived.AOL account is not breaking new grounds in doing this, although they are doing so on an unprecedented scale. Various users, myself included, have been pruning messages on AOL talk pages for quite a while as part of the WikiProject on warning layout standardisation. That WikiProject states the following recommendation:
AOL rapidly rotates IP addresses assigned to its users, so that a message addressed to one user is often received by a different user. AOL users are typically assigned a new talk page at intervals of less than fifteen minutes. The result of this problem is that legitimate users may check their talk page and be confused or aggravated by a large number of warnings that they had nothing to do with. This is the subject of many complaints emailed to the Foundation, and has a noticeably negative effect on the opinions of legitimate users operating from AOL.
To prevent this, warnings should be removed from AOL talk pages much more regularly than usual. How soon to do so is debated, varying from hours to days. Removal after a week is generally accepted.
Regardless of whether or not this should be done is irrelevant. AOL account is acting in complete good faith, and as such there are no sanctions whatsoever possible through this page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
While obviously an offline friend of Carbine (both by his own admission and his similarities in interest), I don't believe that this user is the same person. His interest in positive contributions, as I've gathered from my frequent interactions with him, has been minimal — most of his edits are sloppy additions to the Tomorrow series, adding nonsense to his talk page, uploading images which end up deleted, or appeals that he isn't a Carbine sock. I wouldn't spend much time investigating or doing a checkuser, but all the same, he's on thin ice in my book. Like Carbine, he seems to regard the 'pedia as a playground rather than a serious project — he just hasn't gone to the length of creating a merry band of dwarves. Yet. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
it is ovious that you have no evidence to support your claims! So they have made simular contributions. so what? That is not very strong evidence to go blocking people with. I would like to see more evidence then that. It wouldnt hold up in any court. PS i am not a sockpuppet or master or anything so leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!. F 2210:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no evidence? Shall we disregard all the edits made to my Talk page that I have arbitarily removed because they were obvious vandalism? I didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet; I was merely stating the reason for your block as cited through the Wiki template. I don't care if you're the same person, but I am concerned that you are being a major inconvenience to other editors. If you want others to leave you alone, it would behove you to leave us alone and let us make proper, constructive edits without some random guy playing with our hard work. Let the admins decide what to make of this situation, and stay away from my Talk page. --Scottie theNerd23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
CheckUserKelly Martin notes that the network these users are operating from belongs to a school. Others on this network include two indefinitely blocked users, Mark606800 and OWN3D. Edit overlap suggest there is more than one user behind these usernames; references to each other suggest they are likely friends or classmates. Of these, only Dfrg.msc remains unblocked and has been watchlisted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Cunado19(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- This user is vandalising the Rashad Khalifa and Divisions of Islam and United Submitters International article. They were in desperate need of a clean-up. Khalifa and the USI are *not* Muslim, nor do they claim to be. I have provided evidence in the TALK sections on both the Khalifa and USI articles. Cunado provided no rationale, he just reverted despite a lengthy list of explanations that I included. To repeat: Khalifa + USI = non-Muslim. Khalifa's translation of the Quran reads: "The true Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will be consolidated into one religion - complete submission and absolute devotion to God ALONE," and the article here [10]. Cunado has no idea what he is talking about, I am a Submitter and I *know* that we do not call ourselves Muslim, nor do we claim to be Islamic. This is a misconception that has plagued Wikipedia for far too long. Peace be upon you all. // Davidaitken22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If by "vandalism" is meant reverting extremely biased edits/deletions and improving the article, then I'm guilty. Cuñado - Talk23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Skankboy(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) actually not a case of vandalism per se, but more a request to investigate user for possible misrepresentation. on this user's page are userbox templates which say he is a member of the counter-vandalism unit and is equipped with Vandalproof. however there is nothing in his talkpage history nor on the Vandalproof page that confirms this user was ever approved to use the feature.
Furthermore these userboxes showed up on his user page after receiving at least ONE warning template regarding rude behavior on Wikipedia. I'd like someone to look into this and see if this guy's being truthful. Drmagic23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the VandalProof userbox from his talk page since he's not approved for its use. I've also left him a message on his talk page. Anyone can claim to be a member of the CVU, so I'm not taking any action on that. This isn't really something that needs to come here as any editor could have taken these actions - it doesn't require the intervention of an admin. Best, Gwernol00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't concern this to be a place where admin intervention is required (thinking WP:AIAV for that purpose). We investigate. --ZsinjTalk03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking action. only reason i put this here is because there's no organization on Wikipedia. but now that i know i will act accordingly. thanks. Drmagic00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not quite a public nusance, but that's where this editor's behavior is leading towards. No edits in past two days. --ZsinjTalk02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
OleMaster(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) -- Has contiually introduced grammatical and capitalization errors despite many attempts at correction for many months. Content contributions are rarely of value. Exhibits extreme defensiveness and abusiveness upon even the most polite corrections. Uses incoherent and profanity laden edit summaries. Repeatedly adds link to non-existent foreign language articles despite many attempts at correction. Charles (Kznf)22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
CoolKatt_number_99999(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has, on various Wiki articles, contributed what could be considered unsubstaniated information on articles related to television stations. In this article, for example, he/she added unverified information about what the call letters of television stations mean; the information was later verified and proven to be factually incorrect. In the instance of KMYL-LP, there is no way the call letters could mean what he/she lists them as, because My Network TV didn't exist when the station was founded. In other cases, he/she speculates that the letter W in call letters means "We're" (see WSTM) - when, in may cases, that's not correct. I don't think this user is doing it in bad faith, but at the same time, it is a persistent problem. I'm hesitant to bring this up with the user because he/she is involved in several edit disputes / personal conflicts with other users. Amnewsboy13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The user in question also has six kajillion user subpages related to a fictional history of TV stations, which may or may not be related to the current situation. I mention it here for informational purposes only, as an uninvolved observer. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up User has - again - re-added his interpretation of the AETN letters, even though they are factually incorrect. (I can provide documentation if needed.) Amnewsboy04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like being called a vandal. The callsigns on AETN have to mean something, even if there is no source. And the KMYL calls were adopted after its parent station, KASY-TV, was announced as a MNT affliate. CoolKatt number 9999904:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if the latter was an error on my part. However, AETN insists the call letters -- officially -- mean nothing. I'm simply asking that you verify any call letter changes you make with the station in question before making them. Amnewsboy05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Deliberately adding unverified information is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Any such information can be removed immediately, and persisting in adding such information after appropriate warnings will lead to a block. CoolKatt number 99999 has been notified of this and watchlisted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Neuropean(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) Editing my comments on my talk page and on the Ruth Kelly article talk page [12] - please also see subjects [13] where this user seems to relish his warnings and celebrate his begative behaviour. Several editors have considered this user less than a positive influence on WP. He also has a habit of delting comments by other editors from his talk page despite being told this is bad form. In the past 24 hours he has broken 3RR by reverting my comments on the Ruth Kelly talk page. This is all in addition to previous poor behaviour, Making a POint AfDs, bad faith nominations, etc. Robertsteadman09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
3RR rule not broken. See 3RR guidelines. First edit was refactoring. However, in reverting my edits three times, Mr Steadman has in fact broken 3RR. No vandalism of talk pages. Refactoring as per WP:NPA. Neuropean22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This evening I have discovrered taht Neuropean has posted a spam link and when I removed it he immediately reverted it [14] claiming it was not spam. I have also removed a copyright violation that he started by copying out info from another website [15]. This is the second time I have asked for an RFi on this editor and am increasingly concerned that there is no chance of him becoming a useful and proiductive editor.Robertsteadman21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also repeatedly asked this vandal and stalker to stop calling me Rob - something he is doinjg to deliberately wind me up - and yet he continues - this stalker seems to be out of control. He's made less than 200 edits - and so few of them are useful to the encyclopedia. Robertsteadman21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
And now he has put this on my talk page and his own talk page. There are several things wrong - I am not some of those other accounts, he has published where I live.... surely this should be blanked? Robertsteadman06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have asked and asked you not to stalk me but you have reused to stop. You complained that I had mentioned where you live, so I removed it. I thought that I'd remove the reference on your article just to make sure that you couldn't be identified. Now you accuse me of making libellous remarks. Just what have I said that is libellous?Neuropean21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Oh for goodness sake! Could we have a 'little' perspective here please? How many times are you going to report me?* You complain about me making a copyvio mistake - have you yourself not been warned about copyvio re pictures?
You do not like me calling you Rob, you asked twice. My next comment on the page did not contain 'Rob'. I don't know why you object anyway, your previous blocked username was Robsteadman wasn't it? You know the one that was permanently blocked by ArbCom for trollish behaviour and sockpuppetry! How you have the cheek to complain about being called Rob when I have asked you dozens of times to stop calling me 'sockpuppet' I don't know. You have even added the text 'vandal' when you give my username.Neuropean00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)* We disgree about the spam link and I have asked for the intervention of a neutral third party. What more can I do?
I suggest that if you dislike my edits so much, you take me off your watchlist and stop following me around from article to article reverting my edits.* How do we decide what a 'productive' editor is? Is it someone who clutters up admin with a stream of RFIs RFCUs? Someone who generally takes up at least 50% of any discussion page/adminpage he edits on with personal attacks and consistently breaks the 'don't shoot the messenger' advice? Hmm. It's a tricky one isn't itNeuropean21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the contributions from the ips, and they looked reasonable. The only other users unknown to me are you (Heqs) and Y control, and Y control was also adding disputed content tags. Syrthiss14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
70.81.117.175(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) -- This user has a history of inserting false information with regard to race/ethnicity in Canada/Canadians, most egregiously in the form of blatantly false statistics and misrepresenting government statistics (speculatively/subjectively interpreting them/doing original research). Most recent vandalism of this kind: [18] They were blocked several times in the past, and have slowed down this activity but it persists. I'm also concerned that they may have falsely added ethnic categories to hundreds of Canadian bio pages and were not reverted. I wasn't sure if I should report it to long term abuse (trying to figure out how exactly this whole system works). User stated on their talk page that they "have an account": [19] - no idea if true or what the user name is. heqs08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Update: 20:24, 13 July 2006 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "70.81.117.175 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term vandalism)heqs12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been following 70.81.117.175 for quite a while. It is my belief that their account that they refered to is User:Alm93. Just browsing this users edit history you can see a similarity, but the best proof is that Alm93 created and populated the Scandinavian Canadians category (example edit of populating this category, see their edit history around the same time for tons more edits adding people to the category) and the category got deleted by User:Lankiveil and then User:70.81.117.175 left this message on Lankiveil's user page refering to that category as "MY PAGE". Qutezuce08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I checked out some of their edits, same type of stuff: misrepresenting census data and mass-adding ethnic categories to bio pages. Category:Scandinavian Canadians was deleted of course, but many instances of the "real" ethnic-Canadian categories mass-added to bio pages by this person will never be verifiable (many of them seem to be idly speculated by looking at the person's name, while others may be technically true, but just because you read somewhere that someone is of a certain ethnic heritage doesn't mean you get to decide what they would declare themselves as on a StatsCan census form, or otherwise identify as, etc). IMO this is a serious problem, ideally I think the user should be blocked and mass reverted. Thoughts? Does a checkuser need to be performed first? heqs12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a block and mass revert of this users edits is a good idea. I don't think I've seen a single edit that they have made that actually improved Wikipedia. Many of their edits are questionably representing census data, or just inserting flat out wrong figures, and the rest of their edits, like Heqs said, speculate about enthnicity likely based only on the persons last name. Qutezuce20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Pnatt appears to be a sufferer of OCD, and should not be treated uncaringly. The worst possible thing we can do in his case is to react without thought, especially by applying templates instead of discussion. I have as much repugnance for vandalism and POV-pushing as anyone else, but please bear with me on this. I'd like to direct him towards being a useful contributor, and I'd like the understanding and help of other editors. --Jumbo22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The best way to address OCD would be to leave personalized, albiet short, messages informing him of what he is doing wrong and to stop. Long drawn out messages, including some templates, can be, well, boring. --ZsinjTalk03:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's required here the way it is at ANI, RfC, RfA, Arbcomm, etc., but Porky Pig made no effort that I can see to alert Liftarn to this investigation. I have taken the liberty of alerting Liftarn. Cheers, Kasreyn22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where to write this but Red_Issue is just full of rubbish and Ive reverted it to an earlier version which is a bit less full of junk but i think the page should be protected!
- Talk 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Requires Administrator priviledges to investigate --ZsinjTalk 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In Processing --ZsinjTalk 17:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
