Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tiptoety: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:11, 14 November 2008 editTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 editsm Archive← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:38, 28 November 2024 edit undo64.110.133.230 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Tiptoety/Nav}} {{User:Tiptoety/Nav}}
| style="width:100%; margin:auto; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}}; border-right-width:4px; border-bottom-width:4px; vertical-align: top;" | | style="width:100%; margin:auto; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}}; border-right-width:4px; border-bottom-width:4px; vertical-align: top;" |

{{tmbox {{tmbox
| type = notice | type = notice
Line 12: Line 11:
| text = ] | text = ]
}} }}

{| style="float:right;" {| style="float:right;"
| |
{{userboxtop {{userboxtop
| bordercolor = #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}} | bordercolor = #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}}
| toptext = <small>For I have learned to look on nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth, but hearing oftentimes the still, sad music of humanity.</small> | toptext = <small>Our environment, the world in which we live and work, is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.</small>
}} }}
] ]
|} |}
|- |-
| |
{|class="userboxes" style="margin-left: 1em;; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 248px; border: #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}} solid 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000; float: right; text-align: center;" {|class="userboxes" style="margin-left: 1em;; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 248px; border: #{{User:Tiptoety/Color 2}} solid 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000000; float: right; text-align: center;"
|
{{User:UBX/vandalized|92}}
|-
|
{{WM|float|User:Prodego/Wikistress|01}}
|- |-
| ''']'''<br />], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]<br />], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | ''']'''<br />], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]<br />], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
|} |}
|} |}
Line 37: Line 30:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 19 |archive = User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 37
}} }}
{{not around|has left Misplaced Pages|Tiptoety|November 4, 2015}}
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== User:Howard2112 ==

I'm sorry to input into Someone else's note to you, but we are unsure how to contact you. Can you please help us retrieve our DION RAMBO's edit? We would greatly appreciate it. We didn't save the input, but we will take it and clean things up. Thank you sooo much. Fan of Talent. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Hey Tiptoety, sorry to bring this up again, but User:Howard2112 keeps adding the fansite link to Coldplay's article and still doesn't listen to the warnings left on his talkpage. I was wondering if you can do something about this. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry I was not around the other day, if I had been, Howard2112 would have received indef block. Seeing as it is now stale, I am going to leave him unblocked and do my best to keep an eye on him. If he starts it up again, you know where to find me. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::You know it. :) --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Completely appropriate. I just had the idea that, since he appeared to be online, a slightly edgier warning might coax him to join in a discussion over at 3RR. Most likely that would not have worked, and your close is well-justified. It might be worthwhile to log your block in the ] listing, for future reference, and since it seems possible that this editor will continue in the same vein in the future. ] (]) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:''Please see my reply . ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)''

== Rollback etc ==

I see you granted someone rollback access. Is that the only admin ability that can be granted separately, or were all the abilities split? I've been away for a year and I have no clue when it would have happened. - ]|] 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:No, you can grant Rollbacker, Account Creator, and IP-exempt (all at once if you wish). Take a look . Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Knock, knock... ==

Who's there? MascotGuy. MascotGuy who? Sorry, no answer because the little idiot has yet to edit a single talk page in four years. He has, however, created six new accounts. Oy vey. --] (]) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:And I highly doubt he will ever stop..... :-/ ] <sup>]</sup> 03:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Korlzor and IP sockpuppets ==

Relating to this , some obvious sockpuppet IP accounts have started again: or . Maybe someone should put an eye out for this user, because he/she gets completely out of hand as last time? Regards,--''']''', '']'' 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:I am going to recommened that you file another ], just so that if he is evading his block we can get all the accounts he is using. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

Knock knock!<br />
Who’s there?<br />
Admin<br />
Admin who?<br />
Add minestrone – for flavour!<br />
<br />
Knock knock!<br />
Who’s there?<br />
Admin<br />
Admin who?<br />
Admin who granted me rollback, silly!<br />
<br />
Don’t worry, my reverts will be better than my Knock knock jokes ;) (they couldn’t be much worse) ] (]) 15:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:I think that actually goes in my top 5 best knock knock jokes that I have heard (on my talk page at least) :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Ragusino checkuser ==

Hello Tiptoety. I noticed you making a procedural edit to ]. Based on your experience, do you think this case should be withdrawn? I know this part of the world is rife with sockpuppets but I myself don't know of any other suspicions connecting Ragusino to other *named* accounts. (The CUs are unlikely to want to confirm any IPs). Just don't want me and Alasdair to be scolded for fishing. ] (]) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it should be closed seeing as it has been dealt with. I am going to let a CU make that call though. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== Block of ] ==

Hi. I think you overlooked one very important condition of the that Boodles agreed to. In the ANI discussion the problem arose with the idea that Piotrus works in tandem with others. In direct response to this issue ''you'' explicitly said that the third party revert must come from "Any random user, a third party if you may". It is a situation like this that the "neutral editor" was added to his 1rr restrictions. Indeed, a major part of the ] concerns these two editors, Piotrus and Poeticbent, tag teaming. Best, --'']] ]'' 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:Hm, I consider Poeticbent to be a third party. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::There is this huge arbom case going on about these two editors tag-teaming. If he does not fit under the "non-real third party" which was explicitly excluded from the 1RR restriction, then who is!?--'']] ]'' 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--'']] ]'' 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I have to agree here, Tiptoety. Poeticbent is hardly a "third party", but rather a who has been in the thick of these edit wars from the start. He also features in the sitting arbitrators workshop sections: ] etc. I am ''strongly'' requesting that you re-consider this block. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, so by Boodlesthecat edit warring with him (Poeticbent) it just inflames the edit war. I think what needs to be taken out of this is that Boodlesthecat violated his restrictions, and has continued to edit war. While I in no way feel that Boodlesthecat is 100% responsible for the conflict, I do think that by him reverting ''any'' users multiple times, or reverting any ''type'' he is just continuing the edit war. At this time I feel that the block is sound. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Given that he's being tag-teamed by involved editors, and that your 1RR rule was explicitly restricted to uninvolved editors, I think that the time served should suffice as a deterrent. While I don't object to the initial block, even though there was technically no violation, a 2 week block is extraordinary, particularly under these circumstances; I strongly recommend that you remove it at this point. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Jay, I believe the issue here is more that Boodles was given a bright line rule of 1RR, he then reverted the removal of a tag twice. While I agree it looks fishy that Poetic would make such a large text removal, and has the hallmarks of a ], Boodles should have known better than to edit war. I would encourage those concerned about tag teaming to enter the evidence into the ongoing RFAR and remind Boodles that we are a team of 10,000 users, if he is faced with such a situation again, there are more than enough other users and noticeboards who can be brought in to handle the situation. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's difficult for a volatile individual who is being provoked and tag-teamed to avoid tripping over a restriction that he technically didn't violate. While he should not be edit-warring (nor should Piotrus and Poeticbent), do you think a two week ban is reasonable under the circumstances? Or, like me, would you think the 1 day ban served would be warning enough? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::(ec)This bright line 1RR was conditioned that the two reverts be of two different ''neutral'' users. This "neutral" condition was explicitly agreed upon by ''Tip'' due to ''this very situation'' - that one of the accused tag-teamers will come by and revert to the other tag teamers version, thus putting Boodles in a 1RR spot while the other will avoid this problem. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I just can't get over how an admin and another editor will agree on certain extreme and strict conditions, the editor abides by the conditions, yet the same admin blocks him anyway. --'']] ]'' 05:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::There Brewcrewer, is where we differ. I ''do'' feel that he violated his conditions. While Poeticbent may not be 100% neutral, it does not give Boody the right to continually revert. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm reading the restrictions as neutral being other than Piotrus. And in any event, an editor with a block log such as should know by now that edit warring over a tag will not be tolerated. That said, I think the block could be shortened to 1 week instead of the full two week term. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(ec)Tip: First of all he wasn't "continuously reverting". He removed an in-line tag and then ''over an hour later'', after a bunch of intervening edits, he readded a sourced paragraph (<sup>which without the paragraph the whole article loses its NPOV and balance, but that's a different discussion for a different day</sup>) that was removed sans any discussion. These two edits cannot, under any stretch, be considered "continuous". Regarding the neutral conditions, it was the very editors that are accused of tag-teaming (which are five at most) whom the neutral condition had in mind. Please read that September ANI discussion. It was this very situation that Boodles and Shabbaz were concerned about. It was this very situation that you agreed would not be considered an 1RR.--'']] ]'' 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent} Brewcrewer I do agree with you there. The idea was to ensure that the 1RR restrictions were not gamed. Let me say this. 1) When I placed the block I was unaware that Poetic was involved so heavily in this dispute (and was completely unaware that he was considered to be one of the ]. 2) I feel that the block is still valid seeing as there is no hard evidence to prove that Poetic is in fact tag teaming, and in no way gamed the block. Boodles ''did'' violate 1RR. Having said that, I have done some thinking and see that this may be doing more harm then good. I do not want to give off the impression that blocks will be used in a manner to give better odds to one side of the dispute opposed to the other, but at the same time I feel that Boodles did in fact edit war and ] users need to be ]. So, I am currently a bit stuck here (and am not afraid to admit it) but am not feeling comfortable unblocking but will allow if another admin sees fit (preferably other than Jay) to unblock as time served for ]. (I am going to paste this diff on ANI for other admins to review). ] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you Tiptoety. Also, please understand, I'm not in any way condemning the fact that you blocked him, which I think was completely understandable given your own knowledge of the situation. My concerns rested on the length of the block, and the fact that Poeticbent was an involved editor. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 18:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire issue here and on AN/I. On the one hand Boodlesthecat was edit warring. On the other hand, so were his opponents, and it is not completely clear whether he broke his 1RR restriction or not. As Tiptoety has said he would not object if an uninvolved admin unblocked, and as Boodlesthecat has already been blocked for 3 days, and indicated he will be more careful in his editing, I am unblocking. I recommend that both sides in this be very careful about edit warring here. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Tiptoety, in all the time I've known you, I've seen you as being very kind and patient with me and other users, even when you didn't have to be, which really means a lot to me. I think you deserve this. ] | ] - ] | 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
|}
:Ah, how kind. Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
== Email ==

Hi, Tip. You have e-mail. -- ] (]) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:Replied. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
== Rollback? ==

Hi there, I see you are willing to grant rollback permissions so could you please accept my request ]? Thanks. ] (] ]) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{doing}} ] <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::...and {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== PrimeFan case ==

See the note I just dropped on ]. I'll take care of the case rename and tag changes. Let anyone else know that you think should know. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== Re: ==

Hey, Howard2112 continues adding the fansite to Coldplay's article. His latest edit was today. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> 19:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you. :) --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</span> 17:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

== Hi, I got something to say ==

Ok, just so you know you granted ] Rollback permission who had like 7 edits and I had over 250, I think that is unfair. What do you have to say about this? ''']]''' 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:It's an alternative account of ], who already has rollback, and can be trusted with it on a different account. &ndash;] ] ] 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::That shouldn't matter that specific account did not "qualify" according to you turning me down.''']]''' 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think you understand; ] is the same person as ], an editor already has rollback. Giving him rollback on a different account is non-controversial. &ndash;] ] ] 00:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::It is Controversial because that specific account isn't qualified I don't care if it's the same person I care about the actual account.''']]''' 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::You do not seem to understand that point. If you had come to ] and said that your account was a non-disruptive sock of another account of yours that already had rollback I would grant that account rollback too. It has nothing to do with the ''account'', but the person operating it. Instead of wasting your time here, go revert some vandalism so you can get rollback granted faster. :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

== Adopt ==

If your still doing adoption, would you mind adopting me? --] | ] - ] | 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Tyler, I am sorry to inform you I am currently not adopting as I am far too busy with real life stuff and wiki-related duties. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, do you know any other good editors(Preferably admins) that would be willing to adopt me? --] | ] - ] | 05:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Try ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::::''*] jabs Tiptoety with a stick'' - just kidding. Just so you know, I've talked it over with Tyler and we're going to try a sort of adoption/mentorship crossover thingie, basically making it up as we go along. Thanks for the recommendation! ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Hiya Tiptoety. See my response at ] talk-page. ] (]) 16:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, for not blocking me. ] (]) 16:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

== Elect the Best <s>Financed, Least Offensive</s> Person For the Job (aka Oregon COTW) ==

Hello fellow ], it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to ] and participating in ]. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan ''']''' who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for ''']''' before their January inauguration. As always, ], or ] to make a suggestion for a future COTW. <small>I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies.</small> ] (]) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


== Objection ==

I wish to register my objection to the one-sided action you took by placing a warning on my talk page. Your fellow admin at the 3RR Noticeboard found no violation. You have not addressed the points raised by me in the relevant thread on Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. Specifically,
*the discourtesy towards me evidenced by the actions of both roux and Laval in neglecting to duly notify me a total of three times.
*the two reverts by Laval, of my removal of the "essay" Template for evident self-contradiction with the AfD Template also placed by him.
You ask that I "refrain from continually reverting" but I never did so.
Also, your imputation that I believe that I ] the Article is unfounded. I am not interfering with the AfD process, unless you count my comments there as interference. I have left the AfD Template untouched always.

An evenhanded response, in my opinion, would take my AN/I thread into account.--] (]) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:I did take the ANI thread into account. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== Boodlesthecat ==

] is currently listed on AIV, but seeing the messages on his/her talk page, I'm not sure whether to block for the apparent vandalism cited: the person listing Boodlesthecat is currently being investigated in a sockpuppet case, and I can see that Boodlesthecat has had some sort of editing restrictions. Since you blocked Boodlesthecat recently, I'm assuming that you know his/her situation: would you please block him/her, or if a block isn't warranted, remove him/her from the AIV listing so someone doesn't improperly issue a block? ] (]) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
:Defiantly not worth a vandalism block. Thanks for dropping me a line. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== Lifted protection ==

Hello Tiptoe, I would like to respectfully implore you to reconsider lifting the semi protection on ]. This futile process has been tried several times in the last year or so ... and every time it is met immediately with rampant vandalism. His life and legacy are too controversial for his article to be left without indefinite semi-protection. Today the entire article was while being replaced with insults & vandalism that reflect extremely poorly on the entire project. I believe that others and I have worked too hard on the article, to have a situation where an anonymous IP address can negate all of that effort with a simple click ''(at a time where someone may be utilizing his article to find information on him)''. Please consider re-applying the semi protection which I believe was essential to establishing the foundation & stability of the articles quality as it currently stands. '''Thank you'''. &nbsp;&nbsp;] (])RT 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, I noticed you previously blocked the above user for disruptive editing. Well he's at it again. He's mass changing Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and blind reverting people changing it back without going to talk. For example this series of reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&action=history

I realise this editor has a history of doing this and he had to be reverted in order to stop disruption to Misplaced Pages.] (])

Thanks <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Note that the tell-tale above is a sockpuppet for ], who has been banned. All I have done is revert sockpuppet edits to display the correct name of the football team, which is unquestionably "Republic of Ireland". This also results from discussion on Talk:4 Associations Tournament. ] (])

I have blocked both of these editors for blatant edit-warring on the named article. I see an accusation that the IP editor is a sockpuppet, but nothing more than an accusation with no evidence and no pointers to evidence to back it up. The established editor has indulged in edit-warring before, and should know better. The blocks are for 24 hours. Please feel free to amend or discuss the block with me if you desire. ]&nbsp;] 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:] does not list the ip address 213.202.143.233, and so I do not see why Mooretwin thinks it is certain that this ip address is a sockpuppet of Wikipéire. ]&nbsp;] 15:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
::Hm, there is potential that the IP is Wikipéire. I am going to check this one out a bit more. (Possibly get a CU ran) ] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Mooretwin is quite right: this IP is {{likely}} to be Wikipeire. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK) ==


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
You protected ]. It has now been confirmed that the series will take place . I think it is time for the article to be created. 12bigbrother12 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
<div class="afd-notice">
:Until the show actually airs, I am not comfortable unprotecting. You can 1) request unprotection at ], 2) or take it through ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
==Inappropriate use of account?==
Hi Tiptoety,


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not quite sure if this is a sockpuppetry. Just looking at the edit history of {{User|Russavia}}, one can tell that he edited non-stop during last '''61 hours''' (from 05:22, 11 November 2008 to 18:20, 13 November 2008). Previuos time he edited non-stop 24 hours (from 08:21, 9 November 2008 to 08:26, 10 November 2008). And so on, and so on. He edits a lot on three very different and specific subjects (a) Russian aviation; (b) Russian foreign affairs; and (c) he follows my edits everywhere after his recent block. I have no idea who else is using his account (perhaps Miyokan?), but this seems to be a violation of policy. What would you recommend? Thank you.] (]) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:Hm, just because he is very active does not imply sockpuppetry. Unless his edits are clearly ], there is not really a whole lot that can be done. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::I mean that he allows his account to be used by several people (meatpuppets?). Is that allowed?] (]) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, no multiple people using one account is not allowed. ''But'' unless you have any way of proving that Russavia is allowing multiple people to use his account there is not much we can do. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Is not editing 61 hours non-stop a proof? I mean a sufficient proof to ask checkuser to look at his IP addresses?] (]) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, it may be a bit odd, but not enough proof for a block. Also, a checkuser will for sure decline the request as {{tl|fishing}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, this is odd. Not sleeping for 61 hours seems to be a solid argument to me. As about disruptive behaviour, he is now debated at 3RR. Thank you.] (]) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::He took a 13 hour break between 7:46 and 20:37 on November 12, multiple breaks of between 1 and 3 hours, and didn't edit in the 17 hours before the start time you mentioned above (5:22 on the 11th). ] (]) 20:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::He ''did'' edit, though, for 18 hours straight between 0:14 and 18:20 on the 13th. There are usually several minutes, though, between edits. It's feasible that the editor is someone ill or otherwise bedridden, someone on vacation, etc. ] (]) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I missed this. But he obviously did not make any breaks between 20:37, 12 November 2008 and 20:38, 13 November 2008 which makes ''24 hours''. There are many other 24-hour periods like that. I could collect more information, but would that be enough for checkuser? Tiptoety said: no.] (]) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Between those two times, you are definitely correct, that he didn't take any breaks. The longest time between edits was an hour and 47 minutes (with a few other spaces of 106 minutes, 88 minutes, and 54 minutes). ] (]) 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
←Well, that and that alone is not enough evidence for a CheckUser. ''But'', that mixed with other evidence might be. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:I took a look and indeed, this 24 hour edit time isn't an exception, more like a standard if you check the days before that too. Note that he was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of ] once, because they were both located in Australia and very pro-Putin. Maybe since Miyokan got indef'ed they started sharing an account? Or maybe someone else, because this pattern was already present before Miyokan got blocked. But maybe he's innocent. Only a brief checkuser could shed light on that. ] (]) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


== I miss you Tiptoetry! ==
I've been asked to comment here in my role as a CheckUser. Tiptoety is quite right: the evidence provided here does not come close to justifying a CheckUser investigation. Unless there is credible evidence of some kind of abuse, this will always be called as "fishing". ] <sup>]</sup> 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi ]! Wow, has it been a ''long time'' since we've interacted. I'm sure I knew this before, but I thought of you and saw that (from what it appears) you've ] from Misplaced Pages. I am sad... Regardless, I wanted to let you know that I was thinking about you, and I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you with nothing but happiness. :-) I hope that our paths cross again... Yours truly - ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 07:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
== 3RR case on Litvinenko ==
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> <span style="font-family:monospace;">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ]) 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that ], a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the ], by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
*The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See ].) If the page you created was a test, please use the ] for any other experiments you would like to do.
*It appears to be a test page. (See ].) Please use the ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"><span style="color:ForestGreen">]</span>: ] <span style="">$</span></span> 00:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety. I have no objection if you modify the close of this case. WMC may care, but you could ask him. By the letter of the rules on edit warring, anything that ends the edit war is OK. If you think the protection is superfluous, you are welcome to undo that. It was my idea, not WMC's. Since WMC and I edit-conflicted on the close, the result may need work. The opinion of a third admin might be beneficial. ] (]) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:Okay, thanks Ed. I have {{RFPP|u}} the article. Seeing as Biophys has now stated multiple times at AN3 that he will no longer edit war/revert, blocking him would also be punitive. I am not sure what to do with Russivia at this point. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
::I was the one who filed the 3rr violation, and if you ask me you may unblock him, with or without the Litvinenko page protected. ] (]) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, I do feel that Russivia was edit warring and as such deserved a block. I just had some issues with other aspects surrounding the case. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


@] ] (]) 19:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
==Close please==
Tippy, pls close this: ]. Look like throw away accounts to me. See my comment there. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span>
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:38, 28 November 2024

1:43 am, 23 December 2024 (PDT) Tiptoety's userpage | talk | e-mail | contribs | subpages | edit count | awards | adoption program
CommentImportant: This talk page is becoming very boring. Please consider leaving hilarious knock-knock jokes so as to spruce things up a little. Thanks!
CommentMisplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas
Our environment, the world in which we live and work, is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

This user has left Misplaced Pages. Tiptoety has not edited Misplaced Pages since November 4, 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Nomination of Gresham Police Department (Oregon) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gresham Police Department (Oregon) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gresham Police Department (Oregon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. tedder (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. tedder (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I miss you Tiptoetry!

Hi Tiptoety! Wow, has it been a long time since we've interacted. I'm sure I knew this before, but I thought of you and saw that (from what it appears) you've retired from Misplaced Pages. I am sad... Regardless, I wanted to let you know that I was thinking about you, and I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you with nothing but happiness. :-) I hope that our paths cross again... Yours truly - ~Oshwah~ 07:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Spib

Misplaced Pages:Spib, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spib and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Spib during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Misplaced Pages:Spib

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that Misplaced Pages:Spib, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tiptoety 64.110.133.230 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: