Misplaced Pages

User talk:Curps

Please reconsider your move to unprotect this page. After you approved this request, Barrier, mate went on a move spree and then nominated a page for deletion in a bad faith manner; likely his account was hijacked by a page-move vandal. He has since been indefinitely blocked and I'm not sure if unprotection is prudent based on the requestor. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed it; thank you for the info. -Jeremy 08:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also tweaked the block to negate possible email access; there's a good chance this is an ED Joe job against Grawp or a genuinely compromised account (or both), and in either case should not have access to the emailuser function. -Jeremy 08:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on this. Nate • (chatter) 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Null persp; I apologize for not being faster. -Jeremy 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Sorry - just have to do it. This is just nuts ... - Alison 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Undone. I'm headed that way in ~ 14 minutes; I'll prot it myself then. -Jeremy 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ufff - it's wrecking my watchlist (and head) :/ - Alison 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm camping the page right now. I don't need a prot until I need to go to bed. -Jeremy 09:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey Jeske, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive. Thanks in advance. Grsz 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All 23 edits? (I just want to ask before I restore all of them) -Jeremy 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just need to copy some stuff and then i'll db it again. Grsz 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done When you're done, ping me and I'll kill it again. -Jeremy 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Not a problem. Happens to me all the time. :) seresin ( ¡? )  04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we call that a 'cock block'?

Or should I be embarrassed for that and ashamed of myself? HalfShadow 04:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Get our mind outta the gutter ;P I've fixed it already and blocked the right account; I'd gotten distracted before I hit "block". -Jeremy 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Thanks for the prompt response! Brianyoumans (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to go put the block notice on the correct page now... (rakes self) -Jeremy 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this again

Unacceptable. If you must block an account in violation of AGF, use a less offensive summary. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that that section is c&p'd from the section above verbatim. I've already been scolded and blasted for it. -Jeremy 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw, but it didn't seem to sink in then. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, CHL, I've just hidden the block comment so that admins/oversighters only can see it ... in deference to the editor. Per oversight-l email, I'm doing it here as policy is currently somewhat gray re. revision visibility and I feel bad for the blocked editor. Commenting here for visibility and accountability - Alison 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On wikibreak

Hey all. Jéské is currently on two weeks' wikibreak, so if you've admin stuff, feel free to ask me or another admin for assistance. He deserves the rest - Alison 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heu g r?

I assume you missed the fact, that the talk page you deleted was actually Talk:Austria–Hungary moved by a vandal. --Pjacobi (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had thought I'd gotten the correct page. My apologies (I notice it's been fixed since; I was on break when you posted the above). -Jeremy 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Schmeutrality

I am somewhat annoyed that you decided to delete this article under an incorrect criterion, after I had declined it just minutes before and tagged for prod. I request you revise this mistake. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed your decline when I speedied it. I see no assertations of notability in that article; I will not object if you reinstate and reprod, be aware. -Jeremy 08:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You should really check the page history before deleting things...and, I know you are an admin and longer than I am, but please read A7. It does only allow deletion for real persons, organisations and web content. Not logical concepts, even if they derive from a webcomic. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came back from a Wikibreak, SoWhy; my apologies for the rust. -Jeremy 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Article fully restored, along with PROD. As I'm not aware which edits are from the current incarnation and which edits are not, I restored all of them. -Jeremy 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, no harm done. That's why I came here after all, instead of just undoing your actions. Have a nice day SoWhy 08:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good timing; it's 0:20 over here :P -Jeremy 08:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

South Pasadena Middle School now

You protected the high school article - now the kiddies have moved on to South Pasadena Middle School. Thanks!  :)  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tell me when they move on to the elementary school. -Jeremy 03:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note I've indef'd the main account behind it. He still denies it, but his contributions are very damning. -Jeremy 03:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Legend of Spyro page protection

As well as Spyro (series) The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night and The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon.

Thank you for the full protection on all above articles. However no progress has been made. The opposing party left one reply to my original message and hasn't bothered to continue talking about this. Thus I went to the Requests for Protection and requested for an unprotection and was told to contact you about it.

So could you please protect the coresponding pages and watch them incase the opposing party tries to make the edits he refused to discuss. Thank you.

I'll unprotect all of them. I fixed your link above, hopefully you did not mind. If he shows up again, don't edit-war with him if you can avoid it. -Jeremy 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link, stuff like that happens to me more often then i'd like it to. If he tries to make the controvertial edits then i'll contact you. Thanks for being a good Admin. We need more like you.Wise dude321 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to revert him, just don't edit-war while doing it. He's technically being disruptive by refusing consensus. -Jeremy 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Convert

Why d'ya convert 'mon and 'pets? I like them. --98.162.148.46 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a challenge. Those two really don't have much on them, even if you look. -Jeremy 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

anesthesia

I believe mmackinnon and I are at an impasse. He is particularly interested in including an AANA talking point that happens to be misleading; I am particularly interested in leaving that out. Since he doesn't want a neutral position (but insists on the misleading talking point), mere facts aren't going to convince him. I'd like to ask you to change the section to leave out "CRNAs do not require Anesthesiologist supervision in any state and only require surgeon/dentist/podiatrists to sign the chart for medicare billing in all but 16 states."

I'd obviously prefer my version, but would settle for something like "the precise scope of nurse anesthetist practice varies state by state".

Separately, Finavon and Depstein have contributions that ought to enter the page; these are not politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffington (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I cannot edit on behalf of any party on a page I myself protected. -Jeremy 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is the next step? Surely it must be something other than "wait until August and then fix things"...Riffington (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask for unprotection if discussion is not happening. But do not make editprotected requests to request disputed edits. -Jeremy 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was mmackinnon who requested the editprotect, not me. I am not really sure how the moderation system works.Riffington (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it goes. When someone requests a full-protection due to a dispute on an article, the article will remain locked down until all parties establish a consensus, or until one of the major sides starts refusing to discuss. While it is protected, people may use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page to request edits be made to the article, but these edits cannot be to, or directly tied with, the subject matter in dispute or else the administrator servicing the request will reject it. The admin who protected the article is not permitted to involve himself in the dispute. If you think protection's served its purpose or is failing, you can request an unprotection at WP:Requests for page protection and an admin will see to it, probably after requesting you take it up with me first. Note that if discussion related to the dispute is still taking place on the talk page of an article, I will be disinclined to unprotect it. -Jeremy 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User Name

I'm not changing my username. Why do you want me to change it?--JoeCool950 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying rename your *old* username. The one you had before you were JoeCool950. -Jeremy 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That one doesn't exist, I've always had JoeCool950.--JoeCool950 (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd doublecheck if I were you, in particular check "What links here" and look for redirects to your user page. One of the accounts with a userpage redirect to yours was blocked as a Grawp sock. -Jeremy 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to tell me what username your talking about, because my username as I recall was not blocked as a Grawp sock. Tell me though what a Grawp sock is, so I can let you know.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Grawp. And the username is the one you were renamed from, according to the logs: Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs). -Jeremy 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already had Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) changed back to my original one JoeCool950 (talk · contribs). Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) shouldn't exist. If it's not against the rules, I could move it myself, but if so, I'll request for the page to be deleted.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did someone try to use that name Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs)? That's what it looks like. Thanks for deleting it. I figured that was the best way.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone did. -Jeremy 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't move a page with edits onto another one with edits. I'll kill it for you if you wish. -Jeremy 05:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put a request for a deletion. If I ever do decide to use that name again, then I can, not that I want to now, but just asking?--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until you have it renamed first; at present it's blocked indefinitely, no email, no talk page as a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp. You will also have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account. -Jeremy 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page and the user talk page redirect. I wish you luck. -Jeremy 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why then there was a block on the Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs), since someone tried to use it. Hopefully, you guys were able to figure out who it was. I think then, it was a safe thing to have it deleted. Would you mind watching my current one JoeCool950 (talk · contribs) and if someone else tries to use it, let me know, just like with Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs). Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(RI) So long as you keep using JoeCool950, there's no risk of someone taking it. However, I'll ask on IRC for the namewatcher botop to add the string "JoeCool". -Jeremy 06:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it redirected to JoeCool950 (talk · contribs), don't know if it would be a safe thing or not?JoeCool950 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You still have JoeCool950. The name-watcher bot only triggers when someone creates a new user account with that specific string. -Jeremy 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did send the guy who blocked the username and thanked him for catching that. I'm wondering should Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs) stayed blocked, or since they know it wasn't me, if they'll unblock it.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean I would have to talk to stewards at Meta or thru IRC (#wikimedia-stewards) to dissolve the resultant unified account of Joey Kaminski (talk · contribs)? I'm not even on wikimedia? Is that how it got caught? By the way, sorry for all the questions, just trying to figure out how it got hacked into in the first place.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It got caught because it started doing Hagger pagemoves, and it wasn't hacked. When a user is renamed, the old username becomes unregistered (which is why it's recommended to reregister the old account as an anti-impersonation measure). When I say contact stewards on meta, I mean at Meta-Wiki, the hub for all the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, or thru IRC (using a program such as chatzilla) - they are the only ones with the power to nullify existing unified accounts, but they can only do so if all instances of that name is gone first, so you may be asked to work with them so that they can remove the unified account as soon as the local (English Misplaced Pages) account is renamed. -Jeremy 07:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Must you have an account with Wikimedia to contact them? I don't have an account with Wikimedia. I tried to contact them last night, but it shows I don't have an account on Wikimedia. The only account I've got is the Misplaced Pages account?--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

An alternative is to unify your Misplaced Pages account. Once you have JoeCool950 unified, you'll also have a Meta account, though you may have to log out and then log back in to sign into it. -Jeremy 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just put the wikipedia website with my user name. The one that was hacked into, so they can see what they can do and left them my talk page. Was that o.k. to do? I don't think it's worth having two accounts, so once they fix the other one, what should we do with that one. I didn't even know that I still had the Joey Kaminski account. I thought once they switched it back to JoeCool950, that the user name Joey Kaminski no longer existed? Let me know what I need to do for the future, if I change JoeCool950? Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If that wasn't o.k. just let me know and I'll unify the JoeCool950 account to get into wikimedia to get the user name Joey Kaminski fixed, or see what they can do. Once it's fixed, is it safe to use that account again, since someone got into there?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Joey Kaminski account was unclaimed. Upon being renamed, the account becomes unregistered, so anyone may take it. The only account you've had since the rename was JoeCool950. My $.02 is leave the page deleted - he's not gonna be able to use it since standard operating procedure vs. Grawp is to lock him out of the emailuser function and his own talk pages (else he goatses them). Unify JoeCool950, ask the stewards for help and cooperate with them, and reregister Joey Kaminski when they gave you the all clear and give it a random password. -Jeremy 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have them take the unify account off of Joey Kaminski, or do what ever needs to be done, but I think I will though once they fix it, keep it deleted. If I keep it deleted though, is it even worth asking a steward to take care of that stuff?--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there away to take off the blocking on the account Joey Kaminski, since we had it deleted, or should we keep that account blocked. Not really understanding. A steward replied and told me the account was already blocked, so just wondering if the blocking can be taken off the account Joey Kaminski, since we deleted it? I did contact a stewart and replied back that I wanted the unify account removed on the Joey Kaminski account... We'll see what they say. I'll keep checking periodically and let you know what they say.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it involves a renaming of the Joey Kaminski account, the block will move with the name. Ask if the SUL can be removed from the Joey Kaminski account so that you can reregister the account as an anti-impersonation measure (since it is a past username). If it helps, post a request at WP:CHU to help speed the process. -Jeremy 04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Joey Kaminski Username

I told them to remove the SUL from the Joey Kaminski account and just told them that it will show that the account is blocked, but asked for them to remove that. After that's done, should I reregister the account as an anit-impersonation measure, since I'm not going to use it. If so, what type of username should I type in there, or request it as, or just put anti-impersonation measure on there?--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Once the account is renamed and the SUL gone, register the Joey Kaminski account and slap a random password in here. I did the same thing when Grawp somehow managed to circumvent the anti-spoofing measures and got my old name ("Jeske Couriano", without the diacritics), so I know what I'm talking about. Once that is done, feel free to toy with the userspace (even redirecting it to JoeCool950 as it was before, if need be). -Jeremy 05:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:CHU reuest

Okay, thanks, I'll Change the sig mczack26 speaktome 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, why are people complaining about your sig starting in lowercase? There are several people here who have similar sigs (many of which are admins); why is yours being singled out? -Jeremy 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did an editor review and it was mentioned that my username didn't meet Wiki Specifications. Mczack26 speaktome 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your username, lowercase or no, does pass WP:U, so trust me when I say they're full of blarney. -Jeremy 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

OK i understand what you are saying i just did not want it added because i was just following what it said on the talk page that don't add thing without reliable resources i was not trying to go against any of Wiki's rules. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you discussion on the Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260) i guess no one is perfect i was not trying to prevent the person from adding it i was as i said before just following the rules that where put on the talk page and sorry if it felt like it was an attack in any way it was not meant like that at all. Kyle1278 (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be mean. You made a similar mistake I did when I fought against adding SIHULM to the Pokémon list article. Everyone makes mistakes every now and again, chummer, don't sweat it. -Jeremy 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Change in

The stewards said that would be fine and told me what you said to request it under WP:CHU. Since I'm using the JoeCool950 name, I'll let you guys decide what to change the name to and then you guys can take the block off of it, use it for someone new signing into Misplaced Pages, if that makes since to you. If you want, you can even handle the changing the Joey Kaminski user name to some account user name for someone new which is what should be done with that username. If someone decides to use Joey Kaminski after me then, it will be on them and not me. Just wanted to clue you in and that's why I lef NEW (NEW) on the request page. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to handle taking off the blocking off of that once the user name Joey Kaminski is changed to a user account name. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The block will be on the new name, not Joey Kaminski (the block log moves with the name now). -Jeremy 06:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That will work. Once I see the that it has been changed, I'll have the stewards nullify the SUL, or should I leave it up to the person that hacked into it. That's what one steward said about the current Joey Kaminski account that were requesting to change. This another steward said (:Hello JoeCool950, I have locked that account since its only contributions are vandalic, which user is impersonated by it? If the user who is impersonated wants that name he will have to ask for renames on en.wiki (should be uncontroversial, vandal edits there) and on pl.wiki (0 edits there). Afterwards he can come here and ask for the deletion of this global name so he can register it new, to coordinate this better he may visit ##wikimedia-stewards . Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ) Hopefully that makes since. The template channel part if your just reading probably doesn't but he's saying there for whoever the impersonator was to visit wikimedia-stewards themselves. Just wanted to know once the Joey Kaminski account that's blocked is changed, should I still request myself for the stewards to nullify the SUL, or have someone new do that? That's what I'm asking?--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Once you notice it's been renamed, contact the stewards *immediately*. I'll help back you up. -Jeremy 06:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

I saw a comment of your's. It is signed Jeremy but your name is Jeske. Why the difference. Why not just sign your name Jeske to avoid confusion? FK20 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's signed Jeremy because /b/ won't stop forcing it on me. -Jeremy 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although ...

...I had already replied at his talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. -Jeremy 03:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your welcome. No worries about the rollback - it took me a while to figure out what was going on over there, but looks like somewhere in the midst of it someone didn't revert back far enough and the vandal actually reverted themselves...or something. Use once then dispose of safely (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The vandal did revert himself after Sinebot signed his initial post there. I'm already emailing Oversight over the edits to permanently remove them from view. -Jeremy 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops!

Hey Jeske

That was not my intention and i apologize. I did not know any other way to contact you to refute the arguments made. Sorry again.Mmackinnon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In the future, if I remove something from my talk page, please do not reinstate it. The same follows for any other user (and you have the same right). -Jeremy 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah I actually thought i must not have saved it or something. My fault there.Mmackinnon (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton full pro

Please template so that editors are warned ;)--Cerejota (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies; the El Machete thing kinda took up my time last night. Done now. -Jeremy 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2 so be on the lookout for further fun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

eh

You may wish to drop a quick note here: Misplaced Pages:AN/I#unblocked. Perhaps an annotation of the block log would be helpful as well if Orangemike signals he is ok with the user proceeding. –xeno (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike signalled that he is ok with it. Since you seemed to have brokered this topic ban could you add an annotation to his block log regarding this? (as the most recent entry is me typing "restoring original block" but I actually ended up setting an expiry that had already passed) thanks, –xeno (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

: )

-Axmann8 (Talk) 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.

Question 2

I was wondering if the Joey Kaminski username is taken care of?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to confirm that you want the SUL annulled at Meta. -Jeremy 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dædαlus 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank'ee, Dædalus. -Jeremy 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. No idea what that was all about, and no more idea having read the AN/I thread. But thanks all the same. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's been harassing User:Marek69 over an edit-war, is as close as I got. The newest ones seem to be shotgunning their efforts. -Jeremy 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 3

I think I took care of getting the Joey Kaminski account annulled, or the SUL annulled. If so, now it can be useable again? Would you mind checking into it and letting me know. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You can easily check yourself by trying to register it. If it won't let you register it, then the SUL still exists. -Jeremy 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean registering it on Misplaced Pages?--JoeCool950 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -Jeremy 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8

I noticed an ancient bad speedy tag by this user, looked at his contributions and so on, and couldn't miss his most recent edit, , claiming that he is ignoring his topic ban for what he calls IAR (not really applicable here). Since you were the admin who last unblocked him (impressive log, that!), I suppose you know more about what caused the topic ban and the actual unblock conditions and so on (his talk page is never archived, often blanked, and a mess to look through). I leave it to you to take any action if needed, or to ignore this edit if it is allright. Fram (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we specified whether or not talk pages were included in the topic ban, actually. -Jeremy 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? He again invokes IAR to override a topic ban there (I don't know if he has a topic ban that applies there, but the edit summaries certainly give a bad impression about his willingness to change anything). Fram (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified it there. Since he's not editing a politics article or directly commenting on one at AN/<foo> (instead, he's talking about a user), he's not violating his topic ban. I'm also specifying that, so long as he is not disruptive on the talk pages, he can edit them, but no farther. I have a feeling I'll end up in hot water for this, but I feel it's best to clarify his limits so that less questions about (un)suitable edits need to be asked. -Jeremy 09:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Allright, no problem. Let's hope he stays well outside the boundaries of his topic ban, and avoids the worrying edit summaries as well. But if he doesn't, I'll not start blaming you for it, trying to keep an editor out of trouble is rarely a bad thing. Fram (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

EGM

The user is continuing to attack and soapbox on his talk page, could you please blank it, all the others with a redirect to the main account's userpage, and indefinitely protect them?— Dædαlus 06:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note, this message was removed by what appears to be another EMG sock. I have filed an SPI regarding it. I realize what this request requested has already been done, but I'm just reverting the sock's edit.— Dædαlus 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

See below. -Jeremy 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding El Machete Guerrero

Hi, Jéské; just thought I'd drop in and let you know that we're considering the El Machete Guerrero situation closed and community banning him. Since WP:BAN states that banned users aren't permitted to edit their user talk pages, I was wondering if you'd mind redirecting and protecting Machete's various user talk pages? If you'd rather someone uninvolved do it, I'll just ask at WP:RFPP though. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would rather ask that someone uninvolved do it. -Jeremy 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll ask elsewhere. :-) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For an explanation of my suggestion to wait six months, see Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. Durova 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This may require more discussion, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero.— Dædαlus 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"blacks getting their President"

Many respected newspapers in the world have said something like "blacks getting their President". How is it you can take offense? More to the point, what rule did Axmann8 break in uttering those words? I wish I was coming to the defence of a more deserving character, but there is some principle involved here. Habeas_corpus, natural justice. Shame. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't the USA, it's it's own private webisite with it's own set of rules. You can cut the attitude now.— Dædαlus 01:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in discussion if you don't want to engage in discussion. In any event, please address the argument, not the person. I never said this was the USA, so that's a straw man. Natural justice is called that because it is something that all human beings are supposed to be able to understand, and to expect. Habeas corpus is a principle embodied in the WP rules and regs, even if its Latin name is not emblazoned therein. There is a set of rules here, and I'm asking which one was broken, in this instance. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to see a link to a reputable publication that said anything close to "blacks getting their President". –xeno (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If I provide one does that mean you concede my point? On the other hand, are you neglecting to say what rule Axmann8 broke? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

being a disruptive SPA is enough for me, but I highly doubt there was a newspaper that printed something as openly racist as that. –xeno (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So you cannot identify the rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"? Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the "openly racist" extracts you seem not to think can exist. From the left-leaning UK Guardian:

20-Jan-09: But it is not only black America's pride in Obama that is lending extra magic ...

1-Mar-07: There is an assumption that black people will flock to a black candidate that simply does not apply to their white counterparts.

From the centrist and free market Economist:

22-Jan-09: Roughly two-thirds of African-Americans now believe that Martin Luther King's dream has been fulfilled.

I wasn't even trying. Now what's the WP rule that Axmann8 broke when he said "blacks getting their president"?

Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Want me to cite a rule? No disruptive editing. That's the rule he broke, now kindly stop, because you're not going to get what you want by continuously trying to push others around.— Dædαlus 03:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your by now standard repetitive and unreasonable accusation of my supposed poor behaviour is objectionable. I won't be bullied by you. Go file an RfC or an ANI or whatever. Now, I am not saying that Axmann8's behaviour was good, I just want to know what rule he broke when he said "blacks getting their president." Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're not trying to push Jeremy around until you get what you want, why are you here, at his talk page, instead of ANI?— Dædαlus 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I note again you neglect to address the argument but rather to pursue and repeat your false allegation of poor behaviour against me. I came here for a private discussion with Jeremy. It is for Jeremy to say whether he thinks I am "pushing him around", not you. I think you should not have intervened. And I think I should not have responded to you here, on someone else's talk page. Now, I will take this back to ANI so that you can reply to the question: What rule did the (disreputable) Axmann8 break when he said "blacks getting their president". Please do not respond here. See you at ANI. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, I remain interested as to why you took offense at Axmann8's remark. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You should know better than to think you have have a private discussion with anyone on wikipedia. If you wanted to have a private discussion with him, you could have used your email. Now, you say you are interested in why Jeremy took offense. Why are you interested? What do you hope to achieve?— Dædαlus 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I already told you what rule he broke, or were you not listening? Disruptive editing is a sound reason for a block as is anything else.— Dædαlus 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "secret", I said "private". If you wish to have a discussion with me, then you can have it on your talk page or on mine. But I won't respond further to you here, in Jeremy-space. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say secret either? What are you reading? Certainly not my posts.— Dædαlus 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying to your examples - these aren't even close. –xeno (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been here the past 24 hrs, Psb. Saying I'm not responding over that period of time is only true because I did not have Misplaced Pages access at all during that time. Now please stop calling abuse of the Constitution when it's been made clear that Misplaced Pages is neither Congress nor a state of the Union. -Jeremy 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dædαlus 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jarmancooper2

While I appreciate your diligence in protecting my user page with this diff, I have returned it for a short. The account was not blocked until 2 hours later, and so at the time you removed this from my page it had not been a restricted account. Schmidt, 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be coming by to revert it as a banned user's contribs. CU rejected because accounts were quacking loud enough to wake the dead. -Jeremy 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the blocked sock is one belonging to a banned user because a checkuser referred to an essay in deciding not to run a check, that is fine. However, I will ask that you do not take that as carte blance to edit my user page, and in the future simply ask or request that comments be removed. Thank you. Schmidt, 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The duck test is commonly cited as a reason to block sockpuppets, Michael, so it's not just an essay - it actually has some power to it. -Jeremy 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand its power, and also that as an essay it is controversial, and not guideline nor policy no matter how many times it is quoted. I also accept that we do have socks here. I do not think one reasonbly civil edit from the first as a SPA was enough to result in the then including of a vilified user's name in an otherwise convoluted and dificult discussion. The second such, assumably a sock of the first, confirmed presence of socks. Just not whose. And I am in agreement that the user apparently likes stirring up wikidrama, for the conversation was fairly smooth until the fecal material was thown into the spinning blades of the fan... actually resulting in more harm to than any possible good, which would seem to be at odds with the purported intentions... unless such was exactly the intention. A very bad thing. But back to my user page... unles there is blatant vandalism, it is hoped that we might simply communicate before anything is reverted? Thank you, Schmidt, 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barring flat vandalism, agreed. -Jeremy 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting blatant vandalsim is always appreciated. If I had not been checking my own history, I might never had noticed the visit from a sock, and then might have said something somewhere else that would have me appear quite the ass. I do understand you acted with only the best of intentions. So thank you much, Schmidt, 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. -Jeremy 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

68.101.104.146

Hi Jeske, an IP, 68.101.104.146, keeps vandalizing my user page. You blocked them here for a week, and unfortunately they're at it again, see this edit, reverted by a helpful editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the fluffery on their talk page and issued a {{uw-advert4im}}. They do it again, tell me and I'll block them. -Jeremy 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please advise

Hello Jéské, while interacting with another editor in several discussions he has levelled several claims against me of harassment and sexual harassment. Our entire history can be found at Talk:Bono#? and User talk:MelicansMatkin#SEE HERE. The editor has stated that he will report me, and I have provided him with several links as to how he can do so if he is really so concerned. He has yet to go any further but I have told him that I will bring the issue to ANI if he does not, and if he continues to make these claims against me. I intend to do so only if he responds with further claims against me on my talk page. Do you believe I should ignore this issue or make good on my word if he does? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him in no uncertain terms that the next baseless accusation of harassment he levels will be his last. -Jeremy 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; if he does it again I'll take it straight to AIV or ANI. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU

Don't threaten me. I wasnt wrong in making my harassment claim He followed my edit and undid it. Hes in the wrong so dont come threatening some one whos not.LifeStroke420 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And that justifies accusations of sexual harassment? Besides, I am well aware Melicans has Pokémon on his watchlist, so unless you have another page which he has reverted you on that he has NEVER edited before, you have no leg to stand on, chummer. -Jeremy 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And now your name calling I'd suggest you don't do that or the exact same threats that you said to me will happen to you. Also for all I know the reason you know it is because you both know each other and your just taking his side either way it leads to a biased threat. Now I'd suggest you stay out of it and quit your name calling.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chummer isn't an insult, LifeStroke, if you'd so much as read any of the threads using it above. I'm taking his side because you're making accusations of harassment and not providing any evidence whatsoever. I will say it again: Any more baseless accusations of harassment from you will be met with an indefinite block. -Jeremy 02:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

May not be a insult but still name calling Kepp it up and you will be blocked.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Besides not its not a baseless accusation he said on the Bono talk page he had been reviewing my edits and then he undoes one coincidence? I think not.LifeStroke420 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

'Tis not a personal attack, and you are not an administrator. I am. If you feel I've wronged you, bring it up at WP:AN/I, but I wager that it'll be disastrous for you. And the Bono edit should have been reverted; works of fiction are never reliable sources in biographies of living persons. -Jeremy 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jéské calls everyone "chummer"; it's a friendly thing, like the way I call a few editors "mate". He is not, as you believe, taking my side because I asked him too. You threatened to report me for "harassment", and I responded that I would take the issue to AN/I if you continued to make unfounded claims. I came to Jéské to ask if I should follow through on this or ignore you because I have had interactions with him in the past and I trust his judgement.

I would like to note that I have been an active member of WP:PCP since 28 March 2008, as can be seen here, and all of the Pokémon articles are on my watchlist because they attract a lot of vandalism; even articles I have never edited, such as the TCG are on there. I took a cursory look at your talk page because I like to have an idea of who I'm talking with when in a dispute so I can best assess how to resond. The four blocks, countless warnings, and your comments to other users were more than enough to convince me that you had no inclination in taking part in a serious discussion. I haven't even looked at any of your other edits, and the fact that you made an addition to the Pokémon article that I reverted is simply a coincidence. When I compare edits I look at the content, not the contributors. I didn't even realize it was your edit I had reverted until after you came screaming at me on my talk page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that this is in re my past handling of Frankenstein's Monster's harassment-by-proxy and my shot-from-the-hip block back in February. I've been taking steps to try and distance myself from the causes of those situations, and I don't need Friday screaming "Pant Devil" when I've just been robbed by the Tax Beast. -Jeremy 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User ERICOLEGAL

You indef blocked the subject user a couple of hours ago and he has made a good-faith appeal of his block per your notice. I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself. KuyaBriBri 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How'd I miss this section?! (apologies to you, Kuya) Anyhow, I wouldn't unblock because of the severe conflict there (and the rule is mainly m:Role account regarding shared accounts). Another admin's seen and declined the unblock since he asked for the fluffery and advert to be reinstated in the unblock request. -Jeremy 19:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow admin!

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I know you don't have the kind of free time you'd like to have, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're an addie now? *applauds* excellent work, BOZ! -Jeremy 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IP sock/off-wiki harassment

Please see the relevant thread, here.— Dædαlus 08:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi Jeske, you've warned and blocked an IP once or twice for vandalizing my user page. Well, they're at it again, and if you look at their edits you'll see that, well, that's pretty much the only thing that IP does, and I'm sick of it. Would you consider swinging your big administrator's stick? And I mean big, since temporary blocks don't seem to do much. Thanks. 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this last night. Yeah, I'm noticing it's sustained vandalism to your user page, and all by the same IP, which suggests to me this IP is static. Blocked for a month. -Jeremy 01:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi

as I half expected, he hit me no sooner than the previous had expired. What a pain in the ass troll. StarM 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He's also predictable. Consider requesting an AF for his behavior. -Jeremy 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion. Will look into it as I'm unfamiliar with that. His actions are predictable even if his IP isn't due to proxy hopping. StarM 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bianca Ryan semi-protection issue

You left a comment on my page about semi-protection of the Bianca Ryan page, followed immediately by a comment saying the request is declined. Was this request already discussed or are you just taking it upon yourself to decide semi-protection isn't needed? There's an ongoing pattern of vandalism on this page. Two weeks isn't a significant amount of time.Docsavage20 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All admins may take it upon themselves to decide whether or not a semi-protection or full-protection on a page is necessary based on the page's edit history. I did so; hence the "Declined" result. And, yes, a fortnight is a significant enough amount of time, especially given that there has been absolutely 0 edits during that time frame to that article. If you wish a second opinion, take it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. -Jeremy 05:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi Jeske, I have created a user page draft Just Like the Son. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is this draft? Be aware that if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's policies, it won't be unprotected. -Jeremy 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, never mind; note that I said userspace draft (i.e. a subpage of your user page), but your own user page will do as well. You might want to convert the references into inline citations with the {{cite}} template and its bretheren, and you are going to have to completely rewrite the Plot Summary and lead sections to remove the promotional tone it presently has. Also, please note that Misplaced Pages cannot accept copy-and-pasted content from other sites; that's illegal. -Jeremy 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeske, I have created a new user page draft for Just Like the Son. References have been converted into citations, promotional tone removed and originial plot summary submitted. Request is made for Unprotection for the creation of the article. 2009nyc1 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still uses promo-style wording; however, I've discussed this with some other users and they think it may be good enough for a go in mainspace. I'll move the article for you. -Jeremy 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP stalker

• 207.237.33.117 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - one of his original IPs
• 207.237.230.18 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - new IP sock you need to block, even more so per here.

Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dædαlus 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that I posted this message on three other involved admin pages, so that it can be dealt with swiftly.— Dædαlus 06:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but please note that I'm not often on from Saturday night to Sunday night Pacific time. Blocked. -Jeremy 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Block request

User talk:207.73.252.254 It's back. Enigma 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your e-mail

Responded to ya. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete

Popartpete has responded on his talk page and is willing to go into mentoring. I think he will place a proper unblock request soon. I have been emailing him and talking him down from his earlier volatile nature and giving him advice. It seems he is finally listening to reason.Drew Smith What I've done 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the mentoring? My main question is should it be informal, with everyone just kind of agreeing it's best, or will there be official procedures and followups and enforcement? I'm good wih either way. You're the admin, you decide whats best.Drew Smith What I've done 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No thoughts on the mentoring from me, since I can't make heads-or-tails of it. -Jeremy 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is where I got the idea. Misplaced Pages:MENTORDrew Smith What I've done 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection/Block Appeal Etc.

No response received on WP:AN, I see. My concern with the full protection of the talk page was that I didn't feel that I'd received my right to appeal to administrators. There were no indeed no administrators willing to unblock on WP:ANI, but I doubt that many had gone to all the trouble of reading the entire talk page of the disputed article, and because the protecting admin had deleted all of my arguments, I had no opportunity to appeal to other administrators on the talk page. That's why I don't feel that it would be appropriate to contact ArbCom at this time; my full right to appeal to other administrators has not yet been expended. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Let me make you this deal: So long as you keep emails and other private correspondence with other editors off the talk page (since that was what caused the protection in the first place), I will unprotect it for you. Is that acceptable? -Jeremy 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Unprotected. Make your appeal, and good luck. -Jeremy 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

please unprotect Anesthesia

Anesthesia is currently full-protected and due to expire in August. However, the users who had been edit-warring on it have not edited (at all) for nearly two months. Today somebody wanted to edit the article and had to use the talk page even though they were auto-confirmed because the article is still full-protected. I think the protection has served its purpose and should be removed. Soap /_{Contributions} 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Jeremy 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed ANI thread

Isn't this a bit fast? Shouldn't the other editors involved get a chance to explain their actions? They are being (wrongly) accused of corruption and ganging up, after all. Yintaɳ  22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't close it, but the whole complaint seems to revolve around those two templated messages. It's not the first time a complaint based on the user talk template messages has come to AN/I, and I doubt it will be the last. -Jeremy 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just learned Eugene Krabs doesn't appear to be interested in replying. I guess that makes my point moot anyway. Thanks. Yintaɳ  22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration, Yintan. -Jeremy 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New wikiproject being proposed for deletion

The brand new Wikiproject User Rehab is being proposed for deletion. After our escapade with Popartpete, perhaps you could take a look at the project, and weigh in at the deletion discussion?Drew Smith What I've done 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)