Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:41, 31 May 2009

Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives
15,000,000,000 BC – 17 Feb 2006 17 Feb 2006 – 17 Apr 2006 17 Apr 2006 – 10 May 2006 10 May 2006 – 9 Jun 2006 9 Jun 2006 – 12 Jul 2006 12 Jul 2006 – 26 Aug 2006 26 Aug 2006 – 19 Oct 2006 19 Oct 2006 – 3 Dec 2006 3 Dec 2006 – 16 Mar 2007 16 Mar 2007 – 22 Aug 2007 22 Aug 2007 – 20 Jan 2008 20 Jan 2008 – 7 Oct 2008 7 Oct 2008 – 12 Apr 2009

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!

Imbris/Pietru topic ban

Hey there. I have effectively declared a topic ban for Imbris and Pietru from the obvious article; can you comment? I think you and/or the IP above to be much more reasonable and have the best interests of the article at heart. Imbris (as can be seen on my talk page recently) claims innocence but we all know he just isn't cut out for collaborative editing, as shown many times in the past. Pietru is blocked for a month and I don't think anyone would have an issue with a permanent block if it continues when he returns. Tan | 39 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. I don't think his ability to work collaboratively is promising given the past situations. That said, as long as he stops actually edit warring, I see the possibility of improvement, and it's best to not ban people when it's not necessary. But I feel a little strange trying to comment this way, because of my involvement. I might suggest you simply ask for review from the admin community generally. Mangojuice 05:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anders Svensen

Re : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Anders_Svensen

How can I possibly request a valid unblock when you have prevented me from adding to the talk page. Why has this been done when every question I have answerd has been done comnprehensively and without rebuttal ? --Andy Svensen (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your warning

Why the Perception section should not extist? We (the Human society) measure perception of politicians, perception of coruption, perception of development, perception of security. I see you misunderstood me, I love England, the English, watch Midsomer murders.

Why this head counting, the IP-user brought no concensus. I generaly tend not to belive IP-users as separate users and suspect that there is a WP that says votes from IP-users do not count, or they do count?

Also I do not appreciate your approach toward my editing, as for the Croatian name, we have sources that you refuse on grounds they are not translated, translations are comming up just fine.

I am against of questioning motivations, we are not here for that, nor we are here to block sources which have their proponents according to WP:UNDUE.

Your accusation of nationalist OR is not true, on the contrary it is not supported. What is exhausting is constant claims of my POV by Pietru, defending myself, then receive the same accusations from you.

Why did you say to Tanthalas39 that I started edit-war after I was unblocked. The article was at the time protected and I have reverted the content back to Pietru's last edit before the edit-war. Pietru was at the time blocked and discussing was (at the time) pointless. Also I was not under any regime of 1RR or 0RR at the time, nor I am this moment. When you placed Tanthalas39 on my case you did it in a way that single me out and just mention Pietru. Why is that? Why is Tanthalas39 in the impression that I am some sort of a problem.

I have explained the part regarding to the British encyclopaedias from the turn of 19/20 century on the talk page of the article in question (last section).

I am truly sorry if you feel exhausted, but don't you feel the rewards also. The article is looking better than ever. I disagree with the IP-user that the article is terrible (or what he exactly said). In great deal you are to be congratulated and said thanks to because of your great work, but you need to acknowledge the need to include Italian and Croatian sources (Yugoslavian sources and Slovenian sources agree on the issue) on the dog to make it internationaly viable.

Do you see me fighting the inclusion of Spain (which I referenced), France (Lyons which I referenced), Australia (New South Wales, Victoria), Italy, American Kennel Club, etc. Where is the fight? Please return Saint Clement of Alexandria, which is properly sourced and used by Fulda, Betsy Sikora Siino and Michele Earle-Bridges.

Even Dante Alighieri in Comm. 2, 328 wrote: Botoli sono cani piccoli, da abbaiare più che da altro. It should definitive go into the article. It is highly quoted that Maltese was the fountain of all Bichon, if Bolognese is refered to as botolo, this should be acknowledged as a coroborative source towards what Briggs said and is most certainly worth of the Temperament section.

Or Spadafori, Gina. Il mio cane, Apogeo Editore, 1998, p 45.

Potele anche ridere della ferocia che dirnostrano difengerdo il loro territorio quando un grosso cane passa davanti a casa vostra, e potete prenderli in braccio per tenerli fuori dai guai quando un cane decide di non tollerare gli insulti da un botolo peloso non piu grosso della sua testa.

— p 45.

Sorry for the previous paragraph, but you seem to dismiss botolo for the wrong reasons.

P.S. Why did you delete Constantine VII on the dog?

Imbris (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't include the deletion of content which started in 2009-04-16T20:23:55, but only valuable additions of content. -- Imbris (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

StatSoft

Greetings. We saw that you had some concerns about the StatSoft page a few weeks ago. For the moment, we have reinstated our page and are in the process of revising it to follow Misplaced Pages standards. Also, our GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is pending. Thank you. EntropyAS (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Anders Svensen

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Anders Svensen. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I commented on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/General Tojo. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/General Tojo

Hi, and thanks for the help on Tojo. It seems Tojo aka Keith Bridgeman threw together some old texts and now calls himself editor of a book on Ferdinand Magellan. In his usual style he promotes it on Misplaced Pages using numerous sockpuppets since quite some time. I did a couple of blocks already. Details on Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/General Tojo, bottom of the page. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man

Crotchety Old Man is definitely Pietru il-Boqli, this account is created for the sole purpose of editing on small, nearly irrelevant topics and jump in when Pietru is blocked to defend Pietru topics of interest, like the dog.

He is constantly commenting editors on the talk page of the article instead of comming to comment on user talk pages. This way he is trying to poison other editors with his suspicions and turning the issues into back-office matter.

He should be warned not to revert if there are no valid resons for reverting.

Imbris (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even a cursory examination of their contribution histories makes it perfectly obvious these users are not the same. Pietru does a lot of Malta-specific editing; he's been blocked multiple times for edit warring and incivility. Crotchety Old Man, on the other hand, is mainly a vandalism patroller with an interest mainly in American Pop Culture topics. The only Malta-related article he edits is Maltese (dog); his first edit there was to remove a trivia item, and he became involved in the edit war on his own. Of note is that Pietru seems to be involved in a dispute over Maltese people and Crotchety Old Man hasn't gotten involved there at all. This is over the line, Imbris. If you do not apologize to Crotchety Old Man for your repeated hounding of him with this false accusation, I will ask that you be blocked. Mangojuice 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will appologize after the check user confirms your findings. Crotchety Old Man is a recently created editor who as his first order of business selected the dog and is obviously more experienced with wikipedia than a newbie. He activated the TW (Tweak, something) among his 10 first editing. I, for the other hand did not know about it, till two-three weeks ago.

Crotchety Old Man is an aggressive user who is full of same accusations towards me, like Pietru and who doesn't contribute to the article (the dog article) at all. He has not discussed anything but editors, on the dogs talk page.

If you want I will appologize right now, but you should understand that Crotchety Old Man evades discussion and slander editors.

Imbris (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've now reported you. Mangojuice 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? I can find the diff where Crotchety Old Man agrees to check user, why do you want me blocked isn't it up to Crotchety Old Man to complain? -- Imbris (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is not used to defend oneself against WP:AGF-violating harassment. It's actually never used to "prove one's innocence", period. Anyway, Tanthalas is the one you'll have to convince now. I won't be blocking you, I'm involved. Mangojuice 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have appologized to Crotchety Old Man . Would you consider this a valid move, to end furter sanctions? -- Imbris (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what Tanthalas thinks. Whatever the case, I'm kind of burned out dealing with your constant attacks, I'll be taking a Wikibreak from this article for a couple of days at least. I might not have made my complaint had that been your initial reaction. But it's not like this is the only issue with you. Mangojuice 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And because that I should be blocked. Where is that enthusiasm of reaching FL. Why do you insist on deleting my contributions to make a version where the Adriatic island of Mljet, Sicilian town of Melita and the island of Malta are equalised? Why didn't you respect the order of those three places as mentioned in the standard. Your revamp was a deletionist crusade against my editing - done because you think I am a nationalist. What nationalism do you speak of? Did I use those Croatian source for a sentence which is completely relevant and referenced that the breed should be considered of Croatian patronage (in the sense of FCI), I have only tryed to insert the name as the least.

Why have you before the revamp supported merging IP-user history version with the version before the deletionist crusade? The WP:UNDUE, or somewere on that page says that views should be portrayed to the measurement of how much sources support it. The Croatian claim is a minority view but has its protagonists (proponents), is sourced and should be included, and you cannot give the name.

Imbris (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm trying to take a break because if you aren't deserving of my accusations that you are editing tendentiously, then I must be getting overly involved and I need some time to cool off. I'm going to leave this response, but I'd appreciate if you could just give me, say, 2 full days before writing again. There's a lot at issue in what you're saying. My history section revamp was based, mainly, on my observation that the history section was not written in an appropriate encyclopedic style. The appropriate encyclopedic style is not to list sources but to write coherent prose, backed by sources. The current version is my best effort at that. I would love to develop it further but the level of objection you've been putting out that has made it impossible for me to work further on the draft right now. I am not trying, exactly, to "equalize" the claims of Mljet and Malta. I am trying to explain that this is a matter that is in dispute. It may look kind of equal right now because it spends about equal time on the two theories, but I think the language gives the edge to the Callimachus version, if only slightly. I think that's appropriate: in the end, Strabo was talking about Malta and some historians prefer his account over that of Callimachus for whatever reason. One big complicating factor, though, is that a lot of those supporting Malta are based too heavily on earlier writings, some of which contained errors. This is all there, in compact form. But the key is that this is writing about assertions that are in dispute. I'm just trying my best to cover the dispute dispassionately. Ok: as to "Sicilian Melita" -- several sources say Strabo was referring to Malta. Malta was part of the Kingdom of Sicility in ancient times, so it makes sense. In terms of ancient writers, at least, this stems from Strabo. I feel the text does point out that some think Strabo was referring to some other place than Malta, but even as you call the city a "lost" one, I think we ought to defer to those sources who have an explicit opinion on the matter, and all of them say it is Malta Strabo refers to. In terms of balance, I cannot see that either side has the clear upper hand, and it would be a bad idea to start counting things ourselves. I can see that a fairly large number of authors support the Malta theory and a fairly large number support the Mljet theory. WP:NPOV dictates that we not take sides in a dispute in an article, that's all I'm trying to do. You act as if equal treatment is a gross mistreatment of the dispute, but if that's the case, the burden is on you to show that the Malta theory is recognized to be a minority view.

My promise to the IP editor to merge the two versions was fulfilled: I pulled back in those good paragraphs about pre-historical origins, and merged them with text from your version. And while some of the other text has changed, the content is still there. In any case I never expressed support for the style of the version I changed and I specifically criticized it on a number of occasions.

I am not making any changes to the article in a way designed to punish you, period. I found this breed fascinating, and I've done a lot of reading on it by now, and I'm just trying to write the article as well as possible in an appropriate style. Yes, I think you have some nationalist issues, because of the way your concerns always fall on one side of this dispute, and because you always always push as hard as you can on every single issue, despite all pleas for you to stop. But my changes to the article are always designed to make the article improve as much as possible, at least that's my intention. Every time you call my edits a "deletionist crusade" it makes me very angry. I'm not a deletionist, and if I deleted any actual information, it was very little and was redundant. I was not on a crusade against you. This is a complete failure on your part to assume good faith, and it's what's leading me to need to take a break... though by rights, it should be you who takes a (forced) break, since you're the one breaking a behavior policy.

Is there a notable dispute over the patronage of the dog? I'd be happy to mention the dispute if we can reliably source it; it helps to demonstrate the dispute over the origins. This is the first time you've mentioned a Croatian patronage issue to me that I can recall. It would be a very poor argument to mention the name of the dog as if it proves anything at face value. I said long before that if you had any sources that establish some importance to the Croatian name I would consider supporting it, and you wouldn't give one.

Please don't write on my talk page any more until 2 days from now. I need this break, and it'll probably be good for you too. Mangojuice 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from a several-day break; refreshed and ready to rock. If you need me to look into this situation, please let me know. Tan | 39 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ...The Maiden City

I thank you for unblocking me. As a new user at the time I was prone to jumping into controversial edits without really knowing what Misplaced Pages was all about. I have learned now by my rash edits and will endeavour not to let you down...we are all human after all.... Thank you for giving me the opportunity to improve this project where I can --The Maiden City (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mocdlondon

The reasons you're not unblocking this user are not any reason we would block them without trying to dialogue with them first about contributing. Can we try working with people for a change and help them to understand why their credible material is being reverted, instead of creating barriers like requiring them to use a confusing {{unblock}} template, and other means of preventing new contributions? Bastique 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but this user needs to make an effort to communicate with us. Tell you what, I will watch the page, just in case the user has a hard time using the template. But my approach to unblock requests is that if there are issues with a user's editing, I make sure they are addressed before unblocking. This user has issues. Even if the vandalized links thing was an accident, it still had a damaging effect, partly because of the repeated reverting. Copyright is another issue, an advertising tone is another issue. I would use warnings if the user wasn't already blocked, but they are, and it doesn't look to me like an error. Mangojuice 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant.Alpaugh

Regarding your unblock decline: you mentioned there's a RFC on him, but I wanted to note that it's been closed as he was indefinitely blocked, thus not much to talk about. Nja 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's no big surprise. I would rather the RFC had not been closed, as it might help settle the issue of whether the community has any sympathy for Grant, but on the other hand, it's probably better for Misplaced Pages not to waste too much time on the issue. Mangojuice 16:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I could have put it better. Nja 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maiden City

This editor was unblocked after agreeing to drop the issue that got them blocked, but as you can see here and here they have not dropped the issue at all. There is also the issue of sockpuppetry, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Anuttamadasi says she is still blocked

Please see her user page. Thought you'd like to know. Is there any chance of some sort of autoblock being in place? John Carter (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting using TW as if my editing is vandalism. He wants me to discuss every edit I make with the sole purpose of trolling! Why do I say this? Because his only motivation is to make me suffer and work twice as much. Crotchety Old Man doesn't discuss, but only discuss editors, he has not participated in the discussions on content related issues at all. Furthermore he said that I should not address him at his talk page.

I have hoped that you are monitoring the article (watchlist) and that you would have something to say to my recent attempt at resolving the issue, here.

Those authors were mentioned alongside with those in the article (Callimachus, Strabo, Caius, Martial) in many other authors, so this is not WP:SYN.

Could you please advise Crotchety Old Man not to revert without valid reason. Also he keeps insisting that I was blocked because of my nationalistic POV. He should realize that it was a petty edit-war, that Pietru initiated with his Malta POV. I have just answered the call to diminish Pietru's biased editing. Plus - I have not inserted any POV in the article. I hope that you also realize that.

Imbris (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, Imbris, he's not trolling, he's saying you need to discuss your changes, and I think that's fair. I'll comment about your change on the talk page. Mangojuice 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting my edits with TW as if I am vandalising the article. Furthermore he doesn't participate in the discussions other than to defamate me as an editor. His contributions to the article are scarce. You said that the temperament section would be improved by you, also you said that Clement of Alexandria would be included. I accept that you might be busy and that my "sentences-phrasing" was not likable to an English speaker but I cannot accept that for that reason (only that reason) those edits were removed.

As for the latest in the article, I added the Category:Dog breeds originating in Croatia, Crotchety Old Man deleted it, then I added it again plus Category:Dog breeds originating in Italy. We shall see how the Crotchety Old Man would react now.

Can we also agree to write just "an English physitian" instead "physitian of Queen Elisabeth I" for John Caius?

Imbris (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets hear ya then!

Lets hear ya then!

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock

Regarding my autoblock request being declined and your request for explanation, you mention "Please explain why you must access Misplaced Pages through open proxies, ". The fact is I have been accessing Misplaced Pages all these years without know what you mean by an "open proxy". I am connected to the internet via my internet provider Dataone so far. Is there anything I am supposed to do or ask my service provider regarding this open proxy thing?--PremKudva 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock Mangojuice, I find that I am assigned different nos everytime I logged in, so actually yesterday when I made this request to you I found that I was able to edit the regular pages. Our ISP is not a very user friend place at the best of times, and so trying to talk to them about open proxies would be very difficult to say the least.--PremKudva 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocks in September

He's an American using his self-published PoD/VP material to promote his claim to be a lost British duke (and, from there, to be the True King of England). At great length.

This is not someone we need on Misplaced Pages.

Although I guess the IP block can be relaxed if it's inconveniencing other Comcast users. DS (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gyalpo Shugden controversy

Hello Mangojuice. Thank you for your neutral input on Dorje Shugden talk page. I fully agree with what you said. I tried to implement the point (3), but these 3-4 users continually revert it. Clay tried also (he has a great deal of patience), he proposed a very balanced compromise, and they reverted all his changes also. It's been going for years. What can we do? In the current form the article is almost ridiculous. And especially the intro is very misleading.

The article in question was proposed for deletion twice, because they completely reject any kind of compromise. They say that only their view should be presented, whereas the view of the Dalai Lama and all other schools of Tibetan Buddhism is insulting to them,so it should be completely removed from the summary, and the very existence of a controversy should be pushed as low in the article as possible, so that a casual reader won't even notice. Asasjdgavjhg (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Misplaced Pages:Mediation? It might be good to take the next step in dispute resolution. Mangojuice 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War

Hi, Mangojuice. An edit war has broken out at Galactus between DavidA and The Balance, and it's gotten personal. DavidA asked me to intervene, but unfortunately, with my job and family obligations, I do not have the time to devote that the dispute deserves. Can you step in and try to resolve it, or refer it to someone who can? Because of threats by one of the participants of reverting daily if need be, I thought it a good idea to lock down the article. I posted on its Talk Page here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock

Thanks for taking care of that autoblock. A couple editors had already made the same mistkae you initally did, so I'm glad you had the eye to catch it. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note on Nash16 review

Actually, he did edit that article. I went back and deleted all of the sock edits to make it harder for future stocks to restore the original text. That said, the tone of the unblock request and behavior clearly matches Relucio. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have your help with an issue I have on the Sound Film page? I revised some statements that were less than neutral, had an editor restore the statements, and when I posted a POV tag, the user removed that as well.

This page is being controlled by one or two editors who seem to think it is their exclusive page. I would appreciate a moderator's input and/or intervention here.

Thank you! (24.62.100.100 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

I appreciate your input, and I will see what happens. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.100.100 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx

I'd have to go read through it again but I thought I had gone to resolution before the blocks and the "sock puppetry" thing. Maybe I didn't. I don't mess with Wiki much, I just saw an obvious(to me) error and thought I'd cure it with a couple pictures and stills. At least to me the cars are as identifiably different as a '56 and '57 Chevy. Never crossed my mind changing such a minor thing, especially since two of the linked cites were bad anyway, would start a war. I'm guessing it'll be updated by someone once the lock comes off the page? I don't think I'llm touch it with a ten foot pole.  :)

I will however post the resolution where the discussion has popped up elsewhere. If nothing else at least it was spirited. *LOL* Also, I'll start trying to figure out the myriad bits of mystifying and Byzantine rules and methods of Wiki before I do much else.

Thx again, Scott

FMChimera (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Caniago

You might want to revise your unblock response - the template says the request was denied, but your text says it was accepted. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did decline, in the sense that I didn't lift the IP block he was requesting be removed. I think it'll be sufficiently clear. Mangojuice 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my misundersanding. It cetainly can be confusing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help With Article for Putting on Misplaced Pages

Hi there, I was told to come to you to get some help to put my article on Misplaced Pages - not sure what to do now ...do you want me to send to you in word? Best AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Comedy Festival (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

lifespan

where do you get your facts on the lifespan of this breed. what is "your source". I have noticed that other sites who specialize in these dogs say 12- 14, some say 13- 15 and others say as much as 18. where do u get ur facts?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.192.198 (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dueling User:Kataphonics?

Since you unblocked the former User:Kataphonic so that she could change to User:LisaSmith76, somebody else created an account under the Kataphonic name, and went straight to editing only the article about Katrina Carlson. Thought you should know; I've already left a very AGF message on Lisa's talk page, and blocked the new Kataphonic as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Kittybrewster

I have replied on Kittybrewster's talk page. Thanks for dropping me a note. KnightLago (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock. See his talk page. KnightLago (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus first before unblocking

The IP was denied an unblock after a number of unblock requests. If you unblock the IP without gaining consensus first could cause you to be blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)