Misplaced Pages

Test Test --HPJoker 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This apparently doesn't work. --HPJoker 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I did the quick sig there. The Timestamp. >>> is a timestamp sig. --HPJoker 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my gift to you (if you like classic rock)! --HPJoker 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.64.3.189

I realize you placed a 31 hour block on him for my report of his vandalism; there is one other thing I've just discovered, based on his pattern and prior abuse under the separate IPs: he's a sock of User:Jamesinc14. Yanking him entirely would probably be a better course of action. (and thanks!) --Mhking (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't indef-block IPs unless they are open proxys. I kept his block for vandalism, though.   jj137 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fryderik Frontier

Thanks, mate; always nice when someone edits an article I've created and it wasn't to flag it for speedy deletion. :)

I appreciate the redirect fix (for capitalizing Fryderik Frontier's last name). MJustice (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ClueBot U1

This time, I used a batch deletion script located here. east.718 at 05:41, December 29, 2007

RE: Sandbox

. That is why I wanted a perspective. I'm glad I learned something bymyself through. --HPJoker 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is putting up links to Google vandalism? --HPJoker 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at the mass edits (are those mass edits?) made at the Sandbox.

I guess so. I think something like that could be considered vandalism.   jj137 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Same stuff,new day.......

Thank you for your assist on the Michael Parenti page. There is currently much pressure from the two IP, (one)person editor to get the references up. I understand the importance, however it is a Holiday and I am a student and work at University. My parents visit comes first.

Thank you for template for citation. If I am unable to make it work correctly in sandbox, who do I ask for assist?

Last Question......Is there anything I can do to bring anonymous IP ( history of edit war, vandalism) to accountability. I really want this to be better article, not agendas.

Thank You again, JJilliana27 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there's enough vandalism to have the article semi-protected right now.   jj137 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my userpage, Nick Martin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, although I don't know what context it is used in.   jj137 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash - Protection

Thanks for your quick reaction. The pity is, you did not protect the "clean" version. Now we have to stay just with that agressive Anti-Habash text, we wanted to keep from beeing inserted over and over again :-( --89.56.167.80 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a revert to this version - AloknaBot 05:34, 18 November 2007, as it has been used for several reverts in the near past - adding the changes, that were made by PixelBot 13:50, 28 December 2007 --89.56.167.80 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to that version.   jj137 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ClaxsonUnit

Hm. Did you mean to block that user per {{UsernameBlock}}? I don't see what's wrong with the account name. — Coren  00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked it because it is similar to User:Claxson, a sock master, and may cause confusion (or it may just be a sock of that person).   jj137 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1288 ---> 1286_1286-2007-12-30T00:23:00.000Z">

Hey JJ137,

Did you know that you went from #1288 most active contributor to #1286 on this list? I changed that on your userpage. Nice job with over 14,000 contributions!!! --Ohmpandya (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)_1286"> _1286">

Thanks! Well, I updated just a day or two after the updated list came out, and it went up a couple places because of people removing themselves from the list.   jj137 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot

Sounds good. The newsletter also looks good this week. STORMTRACKER 94 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wrote the final seciton in it. --HPJoker 02:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ad84

Thanks! :) Take Care...NeutralHomer 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I would have given him an indef-block for vandalism only account, but it seems he did have some good faith edits.   jj137 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some of his edits weren't bad. I think he was just a newbie that didn't know his way around Misplaced Pages yet. Take Care...NeutralHomer 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what it seems. He probably just got aggrevated that people were warning him not to vandalize. I guess he can use the 24 hours as a cool down period.   jj137 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We probably could still use one more article, if we can find something to write about in time.   jj137 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your RFPP; I don't think there's much need to protect the article now that Ad84 is blocked. When his block is over, we may need to. I'll keep it watchlisted.   jj137 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Re: RFPP) - I requested the RPP before I put him on AIV. The RFPP can probably be cancelled for the time being and if need be, like you said, I can re-request. - NeutralHomer 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can remove it if you like. You shouldn't have to re-request it tommorow, as since I have it watchlisted I should be able to see if Ad84 is back at it again. Of course, if I am not getting around to it you should re-request it.   jj137 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I could...didn't want to get in trouble. I did withdrawn/delete it just a moment ago though. Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking the spam only account. He was definitely frustrating me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 New England Patriots

At the time the edits were made the game was not over. RC-0722 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking whn the pats were assured a win or when the game clock read 00:00? RC-0722 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then it was my fault . I've been fighting vandals since the game began so I must have gone overboard with the undo button and I apologize. RC-0722 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

It was meant to be funny. Multiply my writing effort by 5, and I would be on Page 2 on espn.com

PATRIOTS GO 16-0! WOO! --HPJoker 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Removed?

Hi, why did you removed the image of lizzy Caplan? Did I set up the templates wrong or something because if I did, tell me how to fix it :) Beachdude0213 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See CSD I3.   jj137 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Boston Red Sox newsletter updated for December 30, 2007.

You are receiving this newsletter because you are a member of WikiProject Boston Red Sox. If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here. JJBot (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan protection

Hello, you recently unprotected Afghanistan, stating as your reason that there had only been vandalism from IPs. However, the main problem on that article is not so much the vandalism but the sockpuppeting. I don't mind having it unprotected, but can I ask you to help watching it while it's being edited? Every new account that turns up on that or any related article continuing the old ethnic disputes between Pashtuns and Tajiks and about the demonym "Afghan" and "Afghanistani" is a sock. Since your unprotection, there have been at least two new ones, including lots of edit-warring, at least one bogus 3RR report by a banned sock against a legitimate user, and so on so forth. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can help keep an eye on it. Do you think it should be reprotected to any level?   jj137 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the anon IP userspace vandalism and personal attacks.

Appreciate the quick turnaround. There are several registered users who I'm sure were getting tired of the attacks. I had e-mailed User:Húsönd on two occassions to make sure I was doing the right thing here. Thanks again. --CobraGeek (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on a job well done!

I got the newsletter. The bot seems to be working fine. Our only problem is that we didn't get three articles. No deal through. It's hard to create three new articles of old Red Sox players. Ever thought of doing only one? --HPJoker 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected Nintendo GameCube

I just wanted to let you know that only one person, User:Mega Man 5 and his sockpuppet, User:142.59.1.45 support having the section in question the way it currently is, and everyone else who has commented (including myself) support the other way. (please see Talk:Nintendo GameCube#Section: "Marketing Share" tense for discussion on this.) This problem has been ongoing for some time, and I would like to request that you block Mega Man 5 and his sock and unblock Nintendo GameCube because this is a case of WP:OWN by Mega Man 5. Thank you for your help. Thingg (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing USC articles.

If you do not cease reverting USC articles I'll have you blocked. You are helping an avowed hater of USC in CobraGeek, just read his pathetic userpage, the loser HATES USC. Don't make me seek action against you.