Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 2 March 2009

Archives

/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006 /Archive2 for Jan-Apr 2007 /Archive3 for May-Aug 2007 /Archive4 for Sept-Dec 2007 /Archive5 for Jan-Feb 2008 /Archive6 for Mar-Apr 2008 /Archive7 for May-July 2008 /Archive8 for Aug-Nov 2008 /Archive9 for Nov 2008-Jan 2009 /Archive 10 for Feb 2009-

Adopt?

Will you adopt me? --Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Will you adopt me? Pitbull_03 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno De Rose (talk • contribs)

Help please

I want to have a nice looking user page and talk, can you help me out, if not its OK! --Accdude92 (Happy January!) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you close a dispute?

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephanie_Adams

I have no dispute with the article. How does one indicate this to get the lock remoeved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

unprotection of Stephanie Adams

The editor that was trying to insert the lawsuit info now says that he is Ok with the removal, and that he will just leave it in the talk page until he can find a source, see User_talk:Enric_Naval#Adams_v._Poling. Since the dispute is solved for now, could you unprotect the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whirl editing/Edito*Magica

Hi. I am Edito*Magica and don't want to be banned for creating a new account, so I thought I'd contact you without creating one. Can i please just put the record straight, and that is I am not responsible for any of the vandalism I have once AGAIN been accused for. To think I would vandalise the very pages I have been improving by replacing the content with insults directed at myself, is a bit silly, and defies all logic. Surely you can see that accounts such as Edito*Magico, editorofmagic, is the same vandal poking in fun at my user name, 'Edito*Magica'? More recent vandals such as 'Spidermancnichols' are sharing an I.P address on a shared university internet service, with me, so obviously their antics I have been blamed for. They've deliberately being vandalising the pages i edit, if you have noticed. I have had 3 accounts: Chris C. Nichols (didn't want to use my real name so changed it to...) 'Edito*Magica', (got banned for being accused of vandalism, so created a new account, sorry if I shouldn't have, but in my defence I shouldn't have got banned in the first place so created...) 'Whirl Editing'.

So I just thought I would put the record straight. There's nothing more frustrating than being wrongly accused. I mean, look at Edito*Magica's edit history...do you really think I’m the vandalising type? I did what you said and sent an e-mail to ‘arbcom’ (think that's how you spell it), but it has not made any difference. I couldn't leave a request on the ‘arbcom’ page because I was unable to edit.

So what to do now? Do we forget this silly misunderstanding and move on? What advice would you give me? Because I’d like to begin editing again as soon as possible, there are pages I was involved in that really need finishing, and I can't see anyone else seeing to them! To reply, could you leave a comment on the Whirl Editing talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 —  21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is in the fact that we should make a good faith effort at trying to not use non-free logos. I think if you will look at the page annotated in the highlighted paragraph, you'll see that many free, appropriate free images are available for every team (at least that I've found so far; it's still a work in progress, but we're still working!). — BQZip01 —  21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives

Hello again! Can you please re-block Sami Brady, Nicole Walker, and EJ Wells from IP editing again. The same fan fiction vandal is back I believe, and we're all frantically trying to revert the edits. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Same IP vandal is relentlessly destroying Children of Days of our Lives as well. Help! Thank you so much. Rm994 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The same IP vandal is on the prowl again. I can't keep asking you to protect EVERY Days of Our Lives article. Just look at my contributions to see how much fan fiction I have been reverting. What can we do about this? Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The vandal seems to focus on Stefano DiMera, Lucas Roberts, Santo DiMera, Chloe Lane, Marlena Evans, and Caroline Brady. Rm994 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope Brady, Bo Brady, Tony DiMera, Rex Brady, Carrie Brady, Lexie Carver, and DiMera family as well. Thanks for all your help! Rm994 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edito*Magica

Okay so I've sent the e-mail, what happens next? Please reply to the Whirl editing talk/user/discussion page. Thanks. 195.195.128.84 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

USRD-CRWP WikiCup Status

This is just to let you know that you have been eliminated from the USRD-CRWP WikiCup. However, Scott5114 is planning another contest to open within the next few weeks. Also, there is always next year :) Good luck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jay

I Appreciate The Unblock, But I Thought You Dis-Liked Me. I Will Try My Hardest To Make Constructive Edits To Misplaced Pages WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.--- Can I Remove All The Requests From My Page...Or Maybe Somehow Archive It WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --WeaverKid194 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian's block

No problem. I believe in full transparency and oversight in these matters. I made a post on the Noticeboard here. My apologies for it being so massive, but Asgardian has a long history of this, which I wanted to provide the context for in those first paragraphs, before addressing the current block, and there were over a dozen things he said in his unblock request that needed responding to. I was thinking of linking to the Noticeboard post in the block/unblock section of his Talk Page, but wasn't sure how. Nightscream (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Get THIS

Okay, a while back, you helped me try and figure out what guitar that my friend had. our desision was a modified Mustang or a Duo-Sonic II. However, his dad took it to a guitar appraiser. Turns out its something called a 1967 Fender Natural, and its worth in its current condition and rarity values close to $20,000.

wow.

the juggresurection 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. My father-in-law had a situation like that. He had this mandolin-banjo (or banjo-mandolin). It had a banjo head, but a mandolin set up. Whatever, you get the pic. Turns out, his dad bought it for him when he was a kid at a yard sale or something, and it sat in his closet for like 30 years. He took it out to fix it up, and the body was cracked. So he took it to a luthier to get it worked on. Turns out it was like a 1922 Gibson and was worth about $20,000. No independent luthier would touch it. He had to take it to Gibson themseleves to fix it up. Me, I play a $100 Takemine Jasmine dreadnaught. I'll never have an instrument that nice... Cool for your friend, anyways. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the mistake of buying all mine, so I'll never get surprised. My nicest one is a Gold-Tone cello banjo. I'd really like the details of a Gibson mando-banjo that was worth more than a few grand, though. Any idea what made it so special? The Gibsons from that era usually command quite a price, but the mando-banjos never seem to get any respect, no matter who made them.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have confused his instuments. He does have an A-style mandolin (that's the one without the horns, right?) and a mandolin-banjo and a bluegrass-style banjo. It may have been the standard A-style that was the super rare one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

$20K is at least within the range of exaggeration we permit our father-in-law for 1920s Gibson A, and I can well imagine an independent luthier being afraid to screw one up.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused

That was on my watchlist today:

1. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) moved Talk:H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) to Talk:Carthage over redirect (revert)
2. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) moved H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) to Carthage over redirect (revert)
3. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Carthage to Talk:H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) (FUCK … CUNT … BITCH … PUSSY … WHORE … NIGGER … ▄▄█▀▀ █▬█ █ ▀█▀ … CLIT … DAMN … BLOODY … ASS … FART … ASSHOLE[[ … DIPSHIT … SPIC … KIKE … F�)
4. (Move log); 07:42 . . Mikegodwin (talk · contribs) moved Carthage to H A66EER (That’s right. Mike Godwin, Misplaced Pages’s lawyer, is committing page-move vandalism! It’s an act of high treason, I tell ya.) (FUCK … CUNT … BITCH … PUSSY … WHORE … NIGGER … ▄▄█▀▀ █▬█ █ ▀█▀ … CLIT … DAMN … BLOODY … ASS … FART … ASSHOLE[[ … DIPSHIT … SPIC … KIKE … F�)

And these are his contributions. Your assumptions must be wrong. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. I checked that. Look at the edit history of Mikegodwin. It's his original account, not a vandal's one. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Look here. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And how can you create a new account with the same name as a sysop-protected account? That shouldn't be possible, so I still have some doubts. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A blast from the past

Hey Jayron! Long time no write! I know it's been a while, I was wondering if you could illuminate a situation for me. I'm currently very active over at WP:WQA, and I ran across something that has me a bit boggled. I'd love for you to come check out WP:WQA#User:SaltyBoatr tag-bombing users talk pages with 3RR warnings for single edits. I got to looking through SaltyBoatr's talk page history, and I see that he had been blocked at least 3 times in the past for transgressing on WP:3RR. Now it seems like he's turning the tables, and issuing 3RR / Edit war warnings to other editors that he's had disagreements with, where there's no 3RR present. You intercepted an unblock request from him back in May of last year. (User_talk:SaltyBoatr#May_2008)

I'd like your take on this one, if you don't mind. Edit Centric (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Block on Jmundo

I strongly urge you to unblock Jmundo. Netito and Durero have been harrassing him for a while, tag teaming, and doing all kins of uncivil things to him. Furthermore, Durero recently engaged in incredibly uncivil talk war with pretyt much all the active editors of the WP:PUR. Please reconsider your position and understand the context. Thanks you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User: Jumdo upon request on the grounds that a block should be used only as a last resort after all attempts to an open civil dialogue between the parties involved over issues have failed. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Dance-Pop

Jayron32,

As I highly respect your decision,

I still do not agree with you choosing to decline Dance-Pop's unblock request. Dance-Pop did not offend anyone directly nor did he say anything considered as offensive (in my opinion) He is a good editor, he makes good edits, uses refferences and summarys.

I hope reading this may make you re-consider unblocking Dance-Pop.

King Regard and happy editing, Youstinklmao (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already acted. Let another administrator respond to his request and make their own decision. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: 842U

My apologies. I usually leave block notices, but this time it slipped my mind.

Reasons for block: Persistent vandalism of Netbook article, including: reverting the lead continuously, reverting cited information here, [here. He's also reverted "Citation Needed templates" here.

He has also been warned about his disruptive behavior:

a first time,

a second time,

a third time,

a fourth time,

a fifth time,

and finally a sixth time before this block was applied. It was also noted that he has been a suspected sock for quite some time.

My apologies for not clarifying on his talk page earlier. Feel free to trout-thwack me in response.

Regards, Cam 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF

What kind of weird shit is this reinserting a comment I deleted almost immediately in order to reply to it? No. I get to choose what I put my name to and how. If you want to add it back, you note that you added it back after I deleted, but don't put it back, with my signature and date stamp, as if it was not deleted. You don't write for me. --KP Botany (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

excuse me? I had an edit conflict and merely pasted my comment back into the page in the chronology after the edit conflict. I have no idea what you are talking about? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OH! I see. Sorry about that. I meant no ill will there. I think in restoring my comment after the edit conflict, I inadvertantly restored yours as well. I apologize for that, it was an honest mistake on my part. Feel free to re-remove any comments you made that you did not wish to be published. Really, I am sorry about that. I just screwed up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Now note this: "Edit conflict," after which I repost my snarky response to you (see edit summary). Or not.

Okay, no problem. I've done far worse.  :) --KP Botany (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to snark away my friend. I deserved it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the theological debate from the Help desk

Theological debates are fun. Continuing from the Help desk, where it doesn't really belong:

No one has ever observed an unmoved mover. Why is one necessary? All we have observed in the universe are causal chains that keep going farther back as science builds more sensitive instruments and more powerful theories. There is no reason (yet) to believe a first cause is necessary, other than the long human tradition of brainwashing each generation of young people to imagine one exists - and as George Carlin observed, He needs money! If a first cause turns out to be necessary (it's way too early in the game to know for sure), it is equally likely to have been any of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Allah, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something no one has yet imagined. Or perhaps the first cause was nothing resembling the God of any religion or parody - perhaps the universe "just happened" the way God is said to have just happened. Aristotle's argument reduces to "at some point, human knowledge stops" and there is only imagination. To say "it's unknown, therefore (some particular) God" about whom we can confidently declare some amazingly detailed doctrine is an Argument from ignorance which we know to be a fallacy - was Aristotle really that careless? In the 2400 relentlessly surprising years since Aristotle, science has repeatedly demonstrated the shortcomings of our intuition, common sense, and tradition. Whenever science has pushed into some previously unknown areas, almost every time science revealed that the prevailing pre-scientific beliefs were wrong. Consider the creation myths of ancient cultures. Ethnographers have discovered hundreds of different ones - and yet nobody got it right until Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection by carefully applying the scientific method. Given the overwhelming historical failure of religion to come up with any accurate science despite endless attempts, why would anyone bet on religion getting anything right in the remaining areas that science has not yet penetrated? --Teratornis (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not looking for a scientific explanation. I don't look for my science to give me purpose and provide me with a connection to my maker, and I don't look to religion to describe the the world as it exists. I don't need to ignore empirical evidence of the reality of the world in order to have faith in God, and I don't need anything more than God having created me a rational being in order to understand his creation. God requires pure faith; any attempt to look for or prove him by observation of the world will always fall short. If we say "God must exist because this observable phenomenon can only be explained by God." then we will ALWAYS be proven wrong when science comes along and explains the phenomenon in rational terms. However, the God of pure faith; the God that exists, and that I know in my heart exists without proof of any sort except that I as a person can conceive of him existing (and indeed, that I as a person cannot conceive of him not existing). I do not ask of his creation to behave in any manner except that which he say fit to create it. Since I can observe evolution, it means that God designed a universe where evolution created a being capable of a relationship with Him. Since I can observe the expansion of the universe and the Hubble constant, it means that God designed a universe to behave in that way, and that he created the Big Bang and caused it (or whatever came before it) to happen. The idea behind the First Cause is not simply about pushing God back farther and farther into the past. The idea is that I know he exists, and that is enough. My faith does not need any more than that. My faith is not waiting to be disproven by the latest scientific discovery, because I don't ask for my faith to be proven. It is what faith is; belief in the absence of proof. My faith provides me with more joy and peace and purpose than I need, and I need no more proof that God exists than that. So you aren't going to convince me that God cannot be proven because I do not demand that He prove himself. And you are not going to receive proof of God from me because God cannot be proven; he must only be believed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yom Sayle

Too difficult. Please would you do it for me.

• The Duchy of Effenhauer (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 79.74.103.205 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Kittybrewster ☎ 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of CENSEI

Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the full sequence of events regarding User:CENSEI. After I gave the 3RR warning CENSEI undid his fourth reversion change as I asked, but instead re-added a POV tag I had deleted. That technically leaves him at 4RR, but Some editors think that adding a dispute tag is not really a reversion because that is an alternative to edit warring - others would say that I should not have removed a dispute tag. I was satisfied enough with that gesture, so I was attempting to discuss on the talk page rather than going through with a 3RR report. I am offering no opinion either way regarding CENSEI's block because I have had some protracted run-ins with him/her before and do not really wish to get into a wikibattle. Just letting you know in case you missed that the last reversion could have been an innocent mistake on his/her part.Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring over tags is a historical pattern with CENSEI. If he did not have a history of disruptive editing, indeed of this SPECIFIC kind of edit warring (see Martin Luther King, Jr. article history for an earlier example) I may be ammenable to your explanation. However, given that we cannot ignore his history of these exact kind of problems, I felt it prudent to block him to keep him from continuing the edit war. I thank you for your concern and your explanation. If CENSEI asks for an unblock himself, and gives a reasonable explanation himself in line with your order of events, I would not object to him being unblocked. However, at this point I only have his history to go on, and that history is not promising. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Accdude92 (Happy Feburary!) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me the criteria for semi-protecting a page (against IP and new users) as you've done with the Days articles? If got a pesky editor persistently contributing via IP (but sometimes a new username) whose edits are not really vandalism but which I feel are unnecessary/tangential/rambling in context. I am trying to avoid the appearance of an ongoing edit war, but except for an edit summary here and there, the editor does not respond to talk page comments or edit summaries challenging his/her edits. Please advise! ;) — TAnthony 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; you've basically told me what I thought, which is that articles are not usually protected in this way except for cases of blatant and persistent vandalism (as it should be). I was purposely vague because my issue isn't really vandalism, it's just the sort of "waste of an edit" stuff we expect from random editors stopping by to add their two cents. I've documented it to some degree here just to keep the IPs and usernames straight, but you'd have to really take a look at the contribution history for specifics. Basically I realize just because myself and some other editors may dislike the edits, there's little we can do to stop them until a policy like edit-warring or 3RR is volated. The frustrating thing is just that this person will not engage in any kind of discussion or even defend their edits. I know this disregard for the collaborative process can contribute to an editor block, but so far in this case I can't quite put together a convincing enough argument to seek that. As always, I want to assume good faith and would love to be able to discuss the issues, but I'm running into a brick wall.— TAnthony 22:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fair use

Thanks for the help. Regarding this, concerns were raised at the FAC for Idlewild Park that the book does not explicitly say the date of the photos, therefore it's not certain if they are public domain. Perhaps you'll take a look at the comments at the FAC. Thanks, Grsz 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User 91.....

See JPgordon's talk page (out ahead of you ;) ) -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He got his chance, and abused it by creating "lulz" articles. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good times... Oh well, he got what was coming to him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:203.24.135.66

I'm fine with an unblock. Jauerback/_dude. 03:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. You have been helpful here. Others distinctly less so. Had there been a single "Hey, what are you up to?" rather than a series of unfriendly warnings I would have explained. 203.24.135.66 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tylerwade123

Just giving my side, as the one you call ‘that Edward character’. While I am the main person issuing warnings, a look at Tylerwade's edit history will show he had been in conflict with numerous editors on numerous pages and has received well over 50 warnings and about a dozen blocks in his 4 different IDs. He's fond of spamming categories, especially categories he has created and adding his own unsourced opinions to articles.

His unblock request claiming he has not edited after my latest level 4 warning is false, as I pointed out on his talk page. . Tylerwade is an admitted sockpuppeteer, as shown here and has continued to edit around the block after his Tylerwade ID was blocked and that IP has been blocked for doing so.

His 'attempt to reach out to me' was anything but as it also makes several false statements. He claims I was 'deleting notable categorys' when in fact, I was deleting unsupported categories. Rather than discuss things on talk pages, Tylerwade has repeatedly deleted comments from people that disagreed with him.

while being anything but civil  before finally attempting to bury the whole discussion. .  And that’s just on one talk page.

His claim that in his ‘reaching out’ that I am ‘leaving certain web pages with multipy problems’ and his numerous accusations had no differences to back them up because his claims are false. Among other things he accuses me of ‘adding fansite sources’ when the sources I added come from the website of the company that produced the material. Edward321 (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your prompt reply. When Tylerwade gets off his latest block could you please discuss original research and the need for proper sources with him? Many of his edits have been productive, maybe hearing a fresh voice will help him improve. Edward321 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk

Hi Jayron, first thanks for the reply to my HD question - actually being an admin, you can look up the file. It was one in my user space - Malware Removal (I think). The title was before I knew about WP:NOTHOWTO. Anyway, I stared using it to work on the Malwarebytes article, after spending the better part of a day transforming a list into a paragraph, and working on the Media Reception section, an editor came in and reverted my edits - and blanked the section. So, rather than argue about anything - I saved my work to HD, then put up a db-author tag on the file in my user space, and removed the article from my watchlist. The editor came back, and wanted access to my sandbox (the Malware page in my userspace) - since I'm a forgiving sort, (and have now been tutoring the young editor) - I figured I'd revisit the article. I didn't want to just recreate another page in my userspace, but just put the link there (on my main user page) rather than do the "File, Open" thing - and go through my HD.

I guess not all the html markup works in wiki, and it's not a big deal. Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I could see you were understandably concerned about why I would want to do that. Hope that calms any worries you may have had. ;) — Ched (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:

I stop by and edit from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oumf1234 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Anonymously and sometimes using temporary accounts like this one. Instead of investigating me, which won't do you any good, maybe you should to the "project" some good and remove the load of shit in SSNP, especially the phrase about the party advocating the genocide of all-Muslims, considering that the party is overwhelmingly Christian. Oumf1234 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Taunting blocked users...

I know, but I simply cannot resist to try to increase the rational level of wikipedia's page, even if it is just a blocked user page. MythSearcher 14:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... but it really isn't helping... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Calton's ANI

Getting lost in the messages is the fact that Calton, a few days ago, posted these nice warm friendly messages: ] and ] both of which are violations of WP:NPA and should get Calton a Wikibreak. I cant post this in the ANI thread, being a lowly IP user, so I post it here for you. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's a lowly indefinitely banned user named TruthCrusader (talk · contribs) (aka Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)), whose history includes real-life stalking, obscene e-mails, and attempts to get me fired from my job. So no, I'm not sympathetic regarding your or anyone else's acting on his behalf. As for this, I defy you to point out the non-factual aspect. As far as I'm concerned, if it keeps that obnoxious busybody off my talk page, so much the better. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are exactly acting on behalf of a banned user and, once again, you've not even bothered with disputing any real point. Did you even bother reading anything I wrote, or did you just notice the "bad words"? --Calton | Talk 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RD

There is a question in the title. It's possible the OP may not appreciate being mocked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi, on November 15th we had a conversation about a sockpuppet vandal (DavidYork), and you were very helpful. I have another candidate, possibly the same fellow with a new hat, here. Can you check him out or is there an official way of doing these things? Thanks, Haiduc (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not impose on anyone at this time, let's see if the vandalism recurs. I do think it is the same person, he came in and deleted information related to Greek pederasty, and exhibited certain trademark behaviors that I will not detail here. Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:96.11.189.125

Thanks for helping me out with this user here.

In case you missed my comments, I found a copy of the GQ issue in my library, and it does not support the claim the editor has been making. He did give me an author, article title, and page number once, but page 73 is an add for DKNY watches. (I flipped through the rest of the magazine in case he gave me the wrong page number, but found nothing remotely similar to what he is describing.) In addition, I can view abstracts of GQ articles with ProQuest, and did not find any article with the title "NBA Eats", or anything at all by Steve Mortensen. Zagalejo^^^ 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure you understood my perspective. Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Koalorka

you recently warned User:Koalorka for making threats of physical harm ]. his first edit returning was another thinly veiled personal attack ]. would you ask him to concentrate on improving the article and not making personal attacks? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

curious

I could be wrong, but I thought I noticed just a touch of humor, with perhaps a dash of sarcasm; on the help desk this morning ;) — Ched ~ 14:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Who? Me? Sarcastic? No.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier

Thank you for being the first to register a Keep concerning the subject nominated for deletion for the 2nd time in less than two weeks. Being the subject of it, I appreciate every bit of support. Saying this is not a COI. If you have not already seen it, I sent this message to the Editor who placed the AfD tag.

User_talk:Clinkophonist#Ray_Joseph_Cormier Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with your message. Just to give you some background, I discovered I was the subject of a Misplaced Pages BLP last April 19, after it was online for over two years. It was a joy to find, but following the MoS of the creator, I started writing it as an autobiography, under the radar so to speak. It was I, reaching out to more experiences Editors to make it encyclopedic, stopped my editing on June 22, and made no substantial edits since then. Those editors decimated the information, and while disappointed, I understood and accepted why it had to be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243

For 8 months, standing guard and fending off all detractors, I patiently waited for an Editor to come forward to work to improve it. I am now satisfied one has come forward to do just that. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tylerwade123 again

Mythsearcher and I have been attempting to engage this user in dialog on his talk page. So far he does not seem to be understanding or responding favorably. I think it would help if you would respond to him as well. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

206.248.226.88, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Tylerwade123. , is editing around the blocks of Tylerwade and one of his other socks. , using the 206.248.226.88 IP. Edward321 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Blueboy already blocked 206..... Nothing much for me to do here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette complaint

Hello, you came and warned me from a wikiquette complaint which was then urgently archived without me having given my response, which I've now given. This is ridiculous, someone whinges about someone else and frames them as bad, and the accused gets automatically warned and not given a chance to respond? What kind of justice is that? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about any Wikiquette complaint. I don't really patrol WQA and have no idea what others have posted there. I had a user's talk page on my watchlist, saw that you left a nasty personal attack on his talk page, and told you to not do that again. My suggestion is, if you don't wish to be bothered by people telling you not to break the rules, then don't break the rules. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point me to this nasty personal attack I left on a user's talk page? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is both linked and quoted on your talk page. If you seriously cannot see that as a personal attack, then I have no way of convincing you that it is, except to say that if you do something like that again, you may be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)