| Revision as of 18:15, 24 September 2007 edit156.34.142.158 (talk) reply to Random832← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:14, 24 September 2007 edit undoYou Can't See Me! (talk | contribs)3,140 edits →UserhoodNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Hello, 156.34.210.48. I saw ] on ]. It seems that you have been removing ]'s contributions to ] under the assumption that he is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please try to ] of our editors here before making accusations of wrongdoings. | Hello, 156.34.210.48. I saw ] on ]. It seems that you have been removing ]'s contributions to ] under the assumption that he is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please try to ] of our editors here before making accusations of wrongdoings. | ||
| That said, I had a look at ] and noticed that you have made a large amount of good-faith edits to a number of articles in the past two days. Honestly, I'd never seen an IP with that many contributions before, much less with half that many constructive edits. Have you considered making an account on Misplaced Pages? | That said, I had a look at ] and noticed that you have made a large amount of good-faith edits to a number of articles in the past two days. Honestly, I'd never seen an IP with that many contributions before, much less with half that many constructive edits. Have you considered making an account on Misplaced Pages? '']]]'' | ||
| :Shutup999 is a sockpuppet of a troll.... an easy to spot troll at that... and will be blocked. As for me, I had a user account with over 21000 edits to my credit. I rejected over a dozen prompts from different wiki-friends to let my name stand for RfA. I seek no "WIki-glory" I am here for a single purpose.... to be just a trusted editor. And I can do that just as easy with a number as a made up name. So, a year+ later and over another 20000 edits as an anon... here I am. I still prefer the "purity" of anonymous editing... even with all the anti-anon hurdles that jump up in the way every now and then. I revert just as many "red-link" vandal-only accounts as I do IP vandals... a name isn't that important unless one wants to be an admin. And, like I said before, I don't. Have a nice day. ] 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | :Shutup999 is a sockpuppet of a troll.... an easy to spot troll at that... and will be blocked. As for me, I had a user account with over 21000 edits to my credit. I rejected over a dozen prompts from different wiki-friends to let my name stand for RfA. I seek no "WIki-glory" I am here for a single purpose.... to be just a trusted editor. And I can do that just as easy with a number as a made up name. So, a year+ later and over another 20000 edits as an anon... here I am. I still prefer the "purity" of anonymous editing... even with all the anti-anon hurdles that jump up in the way every now and then. I revert just as many "red-link" vandal-only accounts as I do IP vandals... a name isn't that important unless one wants to be an admin. And, like I said before, I don't. Have a nice day. ] 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Do you have any basis for that accusation other than the number in his name? It's not exactly uncommon to have a number at the end of someone's name, and 999 is likely to be a common choice due to its memorability. —] 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ::Do you have any basis for that accusation other than the number in his name? It's not exactly uncommon to have a number at the end of someone's name, and 999 is likely to be a common choice due to its memorability. —] 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of {{User|Shutup999}}. Then look at the edit history of {{User|Zephead999}}... then look at the edit history of {{User|Zubt555}}, {{User|Poe76}}, {{User|Duff man2007}}... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of {{User|Zabrak}}. Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of {{User|Dragong4}}. Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Misplaced Pages as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! ] 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of {{User|Shutup999}}. Then look at the edit history of {{User|Zephead999}}... then look at the edit history of {{User|Zubt555}}, {{User|Poe76}}, {{User|Duff man2007}}... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of {{User|Zabrak}}. Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of {{User|Dragong4}}. Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Misplaced Pages as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! ] 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I see. I hadn't checked Zephead's or Zubt's contributions, so sorry for that. Anyways, the reason I suggested that you take up a username was because a lot of users here generally assume bad faith of anons (admittedly, I too am quick to shout "vandal" whenever an IP makes an out-of-consensus/inaccurate edit before I look for another explanation). Regardless, if you feel that Wikiscrimination isn't a problem, and if you don't need to edit semiprotected pages, I suppose I'm not one to force you back into your old username :). Sorry if my question annoyed you at all. Regards, '']]]'' 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:14, 24 September 2007
(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth
Removing a Prod template isn't strictly vandalism. It demonstrates that someone objects to the deletion of the article, so I've listed it at AfD to get a broader cross-section of the community looking at it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It' wasn't so much the temp rm... it was the little rant added in that was pushing it. BTW, any track that isn't a single shouldn't have an article(for the most part). Heavy metal albums, in particular, have nn songs up the wahoo linked off of them. The bulk should just be re-directed. I am a staunch anon. I rejected my user account(after rolling over 21000 edits with it) for the purity of anonymous editing. If I were a logged user... I would be supporting, by vote, all of your recent AfD's. Good Luck! 156.34.210.48 03:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point. I took the addition as being a different way of removing the prod template with a reason (as opposed to putting it in the edit summary), but I guess it can be taken however. Thanks for the support, too. I think this is going to be a long-term activity, getting rid of a lot of nn songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may meet with a lot of criticism, especially from the "metal" contributors. Heavy metal and all its related articles seem to bring out the worst in "crufty fanboyism" from a lot of editors... even those who are veteran Wiki contributors. Even, gasp!, an admin here and there can fall prey to the "let's fanpage it" disease. I respect your attempts to try and put the "pedia" back into "Wiki". 156.34.210.48 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I expect to, frankly. That's why I started relatively small with the non-singles on Iron Maiden's latest album, which I felt would be a bit less objectionable than a "classic". Given that someone pointed out that Metallica have articles on pretty much every song...well, I could hardly say no, could I? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You may meet with a lot of criticism, especially from the "metal" contributors. Heavy metal and all its related articles seem to bring out the worst in "crufty fanboyism" from a lot of editors... even those who are veteran Wiki contributors. Even, gasp!, an admin here and there can fall prey to the "let's fanpage it" disease. I respect your attempts to try and put the "pedia" back into "Wiki". 156.34.210.48 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point. I took the addition as being a different way of removing the prod template with a reason (as opposed to putting it in the edit summary), but I guess it can be taken however. Thanks for the support, too. I think this is going to be a long-term activity, getting rid of a lot of nn songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Classic Guitar
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Guitar#Acoustic_guitars, where the same statement about the 'Classic Guitar' is present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.56.216 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's wrong there too and should be removed. 156.34.210.48 11:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Userhood
Hello, 156.34.210.48. I saw your case on WP:AN/I. It seems that you have been removing User:Shutup999's contributions to Talk:Paul McCartney under the assumption that he is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please try to assume good faith of our editors here before making accusations of wrongdoings.
That said, I had a look at your Contributions page and noticed that you have made a large amount of good-faith edits to a number of articles in the past two days. Honestly, I'd never seen an IP with that many contributions before, much less with half that many constructive edits. Have you considered making an account on Misplaced Pages? You Can't See Me!
- Shutup999 is a sockpuppet of a troll.... an easy to spot troll at that... and will be blocked. As for me, I had a user account with over 21000 edits to my credit. I rejected over a dozen prompts from different wiki-friends to let my name stand for RfA. I seek no "WIki-glory" I am here for a single purpose.... to be just a trusted editor. And I can do that just as easy with a number as a made up name. So, a year+ later and over another 20000 edits as an anon... here I am. I still prefer the "purity" of anonymous editing... even with all the anti-anon hurdles that jump up in the way every now and then. I revert just as many "red-link" vandal-only accounts as I do IP vandals... a name isn't that important unless one wants to be an admin. And, like I said before, I don't. Have a nice day. 156.34.210.48 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any basis for that accusation other than the number in his name? It's not exactly uncommon to have a number at the end of someone's name, and 999 is likely to be a common choice due to its memorability. —Random832 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of Shutup999 (talk · contribs). Then look at the edit history of Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... then look at the edit history of Zubt555 (talk · contribs), Poe76 (talk · contribs), Duff man2007 (talk · contribs)... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of Zabrak (talk · contribs). Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of Dragong4 (talk · contribs). Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Misplaced Pages as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.158 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see. I hadn't checked Zephead's or Zubt's contributions, so sorry for that. Anyways, the reason I suggested that you take up a username was because a lot of users here generally assume bad faith of anons (admittedly, I too am quick to shout "vandal" whenever an IP makes an out-of-consensus/inaccurate edit before I look for another explanation). Regardless, if you feel that Wikiscrimination isn't a problem, and if you don't need to edit semiprotected pages, I suppose I'm not one to force you back into your old username :). Sorry if my question annoyed you at all. Regards, You Can't See Me! 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)