| Revision as of 04:17, 8 October 2009 editEnigmaman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,744 edits →Censorship and Vandalism on Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead): rep← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009 edit undoEnigmaman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,744 edits archive August to User_talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/AugustNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| {{WPPJ-BLP}} | {{WPPJ-BLP}} | ||
| ==Block== | |||
| Hi. Can you please review the decision not to block at ? I (obviously) think a block is in order, but as soon as I explained why (most recently) my comment was simply deleted (perhaps so others could not see it?). Tx.--] (]) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Reviewed, and I have to agree with the admin that declined the report, given the lack of recent activity. If it vandalizes again, bring it to my attention and I will certainly block. What brings you to my talk page today? :) ]<sup>]</sup> 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tx. I had thought that his two vandal edits just yesterday (at would qualify as recent activity. I just came to your talk page as you've been helpful before with other vandals (and the admin in question had immediately deleted my last comments from the report page, where you or another might have seen them).--] (]) 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::With IPs, it doesn't qualify as recent unless it was in the last few hours, because many IPs are dynamic. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Tx (though that doesn't seem to be the case here, as at least half of this IP's last 10 edits were vandalism, and the IP returned to the Youk article weeks later ... a sign that in this case it is not dynamic. Anyway, don't mean to take any more of your time. Tx for the thumb's up on the article -- there were actually some very funny quotes I found. Fun to find them.--] (]) 00:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Many thanks.--] (]) 10:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Martinez trade done == | |||
| the trade is done, confirmed by CBS sports and MLBtraderumors.com, reported on ESPN as done, reported on MLB Network done. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval" == | |||
| There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—](]) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == CUTKD == | |||
| {{Userlinks|CUTKD}} | |||
| Semi-protecting for a week won't do any good. The IP's were issuing these same "I'm gonna get you" messages many weeks ago. It should be permanent. My opinion is that CUTKD is engaged in some kind of game with somebody, but that's not wikipedia's purpose and threats of violence, even if they're in jest, shouldn't be tolerated when they look serious to somone who's not "in on" that game or whatever it is. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that account came to my attention when it popped up on ANI due to image upload issues. Checking it just now, it was created 3 1/2 years ago and then sat mostly dormant until a few months ago. The first threat of violence appeared in late May and has popped up frequently since. Meanwhile, the user was indef'd, but was then unblocked. However, he has made no article edits since the unblock and has not edited at all since July 22. In short, there's something odd going on with that account. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds more like the user should be indef'd and the page deleted, but fine, will make permanent. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm inclined to agree with your first statement also, as it's probably either a sock or a compromised account. He was indef'd back in June and was unblocked based on a promise to behave, which he has arguably done so, in that he has edited nothing except his user page since he was unblocked, and nothing at all since 7/22 - under that ID, anyway. Maybe a "hard block" would be in order, to flush out any socks? As I said, there's something weird about that account. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hardblocks can only be set on the IP. Unless disabled, blocking the account does autoblock the underlying IP, but only for 24 hours. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see. Well, if he ever does come back, maybe he could answer a few questions for us. :) Thanks for fixing. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Memiors Of An Imperfect Angel == | |||
| I am just adding a few imformation on it if you leave it on there i would b thankfull <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :huh? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == When yer aboot... == | |||
| {{User|86.146.156.226}} is another in a long line of metal-observer IP trolls re-adding the link after its been removed. I had a chat with Hu12 about it and he said he couldn't blacklist the site just yet because it showed up in almost 1000 pages and he felt that would be too much collateral damage. Several user's have picked up on this and, so far, the number has been chopped down to 675. Once all the mainspace links are removed (leaving nothing but archived Misplaced Pages/talk pages he can go ahead and blacklist the link. Its a work in progress. If you could take care of that latest IP and rollback any leftover contributions that haven't already been rv'd... that'd be great! Thanks! ]-] 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Daniel Case got to it before me. I'll use mass rollback on the IP and hopefully won't hit anything worthwhile. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''PS''' This IP {{User|88.109.58.238}} has gone like 12RR over the past 3 days re-adding his fancrufty peacock words to the ] article. He's been given the 3RR shpeel. But chose to ignore it. He could use a week off. ]-] 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocked 48 hours. PS: Ping for your inbox. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ]<sup>]</sup> 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Being a complete and total f**kn*t would have been another good decline reason. I had read my talk page before. I am still a bit speechless and self-scolding that I had never heard of such a world famous Russian editor before. Makes for a good "why did you revert me?" answer though.... "WHY?? because I am the famous Wiki libs of En-WP... I can do anything! ''':-)''' ]-] 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, the ''other'' ping. ;) ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|87.194.171.224}} was this mornings metal-O re-adder. I think I got them all. Could you block n check. Its a IP that Prophaniti has had previous access to as he already has a block log (and you're in it :-D ) ]-] 11:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Beaten to the block again! I guess I can look to see if the edits have been reverted. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Oh look... == | |||
| It appears I have blocked one of your previous (again). – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I fully expect the IP to be back after the two weeks are up. This is a persistent one. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I'll be looking out for them. And the other one mentioned above. What comes after two weeks? Six months, isn't it? ;) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find it helps to be generous in these situations. Six months it is! ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for that == | |||
| Protecting my user page an all, appreciate it :-). ] | ] | ] - 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == When you're about .. part 27 == | |||
| has deemed himself an expert on singing and vocalist range and he has decided that Youtube is the ultimate verification for his opinion. He has been adding "expert" personal analysis on many pages about vocal range and adding links to music videos to support his claims. The invisible verification for his content and the Youtube links is basically "just listen and you can hear it for yourself". His edits in this area have gone WAY overboard in recent weeks and he needs a sterm mention from a sherriff that this is not the right way to cite anything. ]-] 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Warned. I see he's been warned by Pat (for edit-warring) and Stifle in the past. Check your e-mail. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The "MO" IP warrior == | |||
| User:Prophaniti stepped around the 2 week block on yesterdays IP and used {{User|86.146.156.226}} to continue his war over at wp:album. He has also revealed himself to have a new account... {{User|Catglobal}} so that he can circumvent semi-prots to still edit pages. Which he did... again... bypassing the 2 week block put on his IP of yesterday. ]-] 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :PS... it still wouldn't surprise me if Prophaniti, Catglobal, The "MO" IPs.. AND ]... were all the same person. Add new account ] into that mix too just because that account started at the same time Prophaniti "quit" and has a tendency to mirror some of Prophaniti's more frequent genre-war edits. (re-adding/deleting the same genres from the same pages that 'Prophi' did). Too bad a behind-the-scenes CU couldn't be done on these IPs and accounts to see if they all link back to the same keyboard. ]-] 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked Prophaniti indef. Autoblock should take out his IP for 24 hours. My connection today has been terrible, so I can't check to see if they're likely socks, but Catglobal has earned a block for edit-warring anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::All three now blocked. Just got the IP as well. Normal service has resumed, and I see that it's the same IP I saw Daniel Case zap. Reblocked for a week. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of PROD from ]== | |||
| Hello Enigmaman, this is an automated message from ] to inform you the PROD template you added to ] has been removed. It was removed by ] with the following edit summary '<nowiki>(contest PROD: verifiable village, article was incorrect in saying it was part of another village, it was part of a Panchayat)</nowiki>'. Please consider ] with SpacemanSpiff before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to ] for community discussion. Thank you, ] (]) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) <small>(])</small> | |||
| == Edit warrior WAY past 3RR == | |||
| Ummm.. I think has more than overstepped his boundaries as far as 3RR is concerned. He was issued a warning last night. Has ignored it and continued his pov push. ]-] 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked by {{admin|J Milburn}} for 24 hours. Yes, I'm a talk page stalker. ^_^ <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Page stalking and eaves dropping is a good thing.... helps us all to "git-r-done" a lot quicker around here. ]-] 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good to hear. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing Larry Dolan Page == | |||
| Enigmaman, | |||
| I'd like to edit the Larry Dolan page. I have a reliable internet source and I'll share it with you. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| ] (]) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Post here or on ] and explain what you'd like to add. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Surely he's earned an indef by now == | |||
| Either with edits like or by his userpage itself. A single purpose personal attack account is what he' reduced his content to. Thoughts? ]-] 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I'll remove the attacks and give him a final warning. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::On second thought, I'll block now. Worthless account, previously used for trolling, now used for personal attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thou swingeth thy hammer with a mighty thwomp! ]-] 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == DYK for The Queen of Hearts (poem) == | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <sub>(])</sub> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} ] 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == When you're about part XXVII == | |||
| This IP {{user|90.199.99.43}} is A)a genre warrior B) a false info adder C)a copyvio image uploader or D) yet another IP of an old troll Scarian and I used to refer to "ol' 90.X".... the correct answer is.... "all of the above". A troublesome pest he is. Scarian has blocked many a 90.X IP... any chance you could follow that path as well? ]-] 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :He's not on the genre troll list! I blocked for 48 hours. The trouble is, I'm going to be gone for about a week. Check your Misplaced Pages e-mail. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for blocking this guy. He's been warring for so long (well over a year) using different IPs, I just gave up eventually on some of his edits. When he comes back, which he will, is there anywhere I can report it for a speedy block without having to go through all the bureaucracy? ]<sub>(]|])</sub> 18:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have to find an administrator familiar with the problem. I usually offer to perform such blocks, but I'm going to be away. You might try ] if there are any problems over the upcoming week. After that, feel free to report such things here. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey bud, if you have a minute, this guy is at it again from a new IP {{user|90.201.141.34}}, still adding the same unfree images to the infoboxes, etc. ]<sub>(]|])</sub> 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{done}} I'm a little late, but better late than never. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The Silver Movement Deleation == | |||
| This page is credible. I do not understand what the problem is. I have valid references. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I'm wondering why you want my article deleted? I wrote the article on a entrepreneur near Buffalo, NY. If you google him "Carson Ciggia", you will find his blog along with several news articles. He deserves an article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == RE:Blocked IP == | |||
| Replied on my talk page. Cheers, ] ] 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == thanks & curious ... == | |||
| hello Enigmaman - thanks for all your good work, and please excuse this "just making sure" question: you recently blocked 67.58.167.45, and although that appears in that IP's block log, there seems to be no notification of the block on ]. is that standard or ... ? (i'm the one who reported the IP, which is the only reason i noticed.) thanks again, and swing on. ] (]) 06:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's standard to leave the block notice, but sometimes I neglect to do it. I'll take care of it now. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::cool. thanks again ... ] (]) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is questioning block == | |||
| Just a heads up for you - ] is questioning why they were blocked on their talk page. As this wasn't done in the proper templated format, it won't be picked up by the bots. As I am not familiar with the case, I thought I would let you have the honour of explaining (and yes, I do have sloping shoulders... *grin*). ''']''' <sup><small>'']''</small></sup> 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. It was a pretty straightforward block, but obviously another admin will have to handle the actual request. BTW, I missed the joke. What do you mean by sloping shoulders? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reckoned it probably was a straight-forward block, and seeing your name on it gave me confidence that it was all above board. However, it was an appeal on their talk phrase, and procedure has to be followed, which is why I thought I should drop you a line about it. As for the comment? It's a UK phrase that I guess didn't translate... Taking responsibility for somthing is sometimes described as "resting on one's shoulders". "Sloping shoulders" implies that I'm not taking responsibility, and passing it straight on to someone else (i.e. you). Also referred to as ] shoulders, due to the impossibility of making the responsibility stick. ''']''' <sup><small>'']''</small></sup> 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gotcha, thanks. I suppose it will help whichever admin handles the request to see my reasoning, although I certainly don't often go to such lengths about blocks! ]<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suspect the reviewing admin will thank you for the detail! ''']''' <sup><small>'']''</small></sup> 14:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think the phrase is '''tl;dr''' ;) No, I did read it, honestly. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>I think it's my turn to ask for an explanation... '''tl;dr'''? ''']''' <sup><small>'']''</small></sup> 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</s> Don't worry about it - did what i should have done in the first place and looked for it on Wiki! ''']''' <sup><small>'']''</small></sup> 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Rollback == | |||
| Yes, that was inappropriate, and I apologize. It's a result of the interface on my iPhone, which can cause me to activate rollback without realizing it. Just so you know I was aware, you'll see that I've already posted an apology on the talk page of the user I reverted and the user who had to revert me afterwards. Thanks for letting me know, anyway, as I might not have been aware. ] ] 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, I see. I should've checked his talk first. My mistake. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| When searching for BLPs that had lasting serious vandalism, I noticed you the Pauly Shore article and, in the process, removed a lot of verified and relevant information, like many of his appearances and his ]. While the awards are negative in nature, they're all true and verifiable. You also removed information on the reception of some of his movies, and some other information. Some of it is understandable as it wasn't sourced or was sourced to blogs, but removing TV and movie appearances seems unnecessary. ] 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :My objection was that the material was unsourced. If you want to restore it and source it, be my guest. I was rather liberal in removing content in that article, because it presented an imminent danger. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more thing. I do not know much about Pauly Shore, but the sheer amount of "awards" designating him as the "worst X" seems to be presenting a slanted view. I assume he's good at something? The article when I first encountered it was a complete BLP disaster. I will not say that my edits necessarily made the article better; only that they removed wide swaths of questionable borderline-defamatory content. was how the article stood when I first encountered it. Since I am hardly qualified to write an article about Pauly Shore, I did what I had to do. You be the judge of whether the article is better or worse than it was on February 2, 2009. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, some of it was sourced, to his own website in one instance. :p ] 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That works. :) Now that I've got you at my talk, could you tell me what the heck to do with ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for your help last time protecting ], the vandals are back and deleting the same section of the article. It has happened 3 times in the last day, while thats not too much the IPs look similar to last time and I have a feeling we will continue to have to rv these edits... ] (]) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ]<sup>]</sup> 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks the Scots thank you! ] (]) 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks again for protecting ] in August. Now that the semi is expiered vandals in the same IP range have removed the same content twice... I do not know if that satisfies the requirement to re-semi it with its past history, if not let me know I will keep reverting and check back in when it gets worse. ] (]) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I wasn't around. I see another admin beat me to the protection. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Braintree rock band == | |||
| The rock band Braintree is significant because they are the only indie band to have had two full length albums in the top 200 indie release chart (put out by Nielson Soundscan) at the same time. | |||
| They have been called "Chicago's hottest rock bands" by WLUP radio, one of Chicago's biggest radio stations. Their CDs have out sold most major label acts in the Chicago regional area. | |||
| I appologize if I did not make that clear in the article the correct way. I am new to wiki. | |||
| thank you | |||
| ] (]) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Did you get my last email? There seems to be a lot more evidence as to the importance of Braintree than in a lot of other pages about other indie bands. Let me know what I need to do to do it correctly. | |||
| ] (]) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. | |||
| Braintree has definately fit this criteria. If you check out this indie chart Braintree is at #172 | |||
| This web site does not always report the whole chart. But it is the NATIONAL indie release chart. | |||
| Then there is also this article written about Braintree in top40charts.com | |||
| ] (]) 22:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Don't blame me just for your intentions == | |||
| I am challenging you to prove it my Sock. Why are you blaiming me for a Sock, when I am not using it. Infact, I have dispute with that so-called Sock. Please, don't blame, you are a nuteral Admin not a counter-part. --] (]) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)-- | |||
| :] ]<sup>]</sup> 07:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou very much dear. I could just hope such rudeness and revenge from you biased people. Now don't blame that 202.163.91.25, the user who just edited at ] and re-edited by you, is also me. I will see, what a shame would be brought to you, when you would be failed in your intentions to take revenge by making an investigagtion by me. I am shocked, how come an Administrator has called me a Sock without any investigation on one of the main Pages. This has ruined my position. Is there no body who could check you Administrtators? --] (]) 07:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What the heck are you talking about? "You biased people"? Speak in English and put your complaints where they belong. In other words, not on my talk page. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested two pages be semi-protected to prevent IP edits: ] and ] == | |||
| Hi, I have placed two pages on the list because they are both subject to random IP edits inserting ] on the basis of rumours about her being a ]. There is no ], and as she has denied this there are ] issues around this. The rumours began on-line around two months ago, and there were 2-3 insertions every week, but since the posting of videos about this on Youtube and her denials last week, insertions have escalated to daily. It is always IP editors who do this, and it is a pain. Please protect the two pages cited against such insertions indefinitely - and when the rumours die down, or there is some form of verification available, then we can request the protection be lifted. Thanks. 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Fine, I guess. But given that it's borderline and it's the first protection, I'm starting with a week. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 20:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pippa Black== | |||
| Hi Enigma | |||
| I recently asked for the page for ] to be protected because it was being vandalised. This was declined by you and the reason was that there wasn't enough recent vandalism and I was to resubmit it if the vandalism increased. That's fine, I'm just wondering how recent does the vandalism have to be? For some reason her page seems to come in for a lot of vandalism so I may well have to ask for page protection again at some point but if the vandalism is too old, I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time resubmitting the request? | |||
| Also, is there anything else I can do to help Misplaced Pages combat vandalism? At the minute all I'm doing is reverting any vandalism I do see, issuing the user/IP address with the relevant notices, putting the page on my watchlist and then checking the affected pages every day to keep an eye on things. At the minute there's two pages in particular I'm keeping my eye on, Pippa Black's and the ] page. The Neighbours page normally doesn't get vandalised but for some reason it's been vandalised 4 times this week by the same user. I'm hoping that as I've issued this user with their final warning today that this will now stop, however I would like to assist further if I can? | |||
| Many thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks for your help before with the Pippa Black issue. | |||
| --] (]) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no hard and fast rule, but I would say multiple instances of vandalism in the past two days. The last time the page in question was vandalized was over 60 hours ago. When it's reported, there needs to be one instance of vandalism in the last 24 hours, at the bare minimum, along with a few others in the past week. | |||
| :Watching over articles, reverting vandalism, and warning/reporting vandals is all you can do, really. There's also asking for pages to be protected, but as you see, that has a certain minimum threshold. I'd recommend tools such as ], ], and perhaps even ] if you want to make it easier. The last one is unique. You'll have to go to the page to read about it. | |||
| :What I did and do is look at my watchlist a few times a day and check for vandalism to articles I'm watching. Then I use undo, rollback, and twinkle as appropriate, and sometimes report vandals to ] and articles to ]. Before I became an administrator, I filed something like a thousand reports, I believe. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again Enigma | |||
| Many thanks for the advice there. | |||
| --] (]) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==94.192.38.247== | |||
| You may need to inform the IP user that he can't remove anything from his IP talk page. He is under the assumption he is. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :In my opinion your block of this IP was a bad one. See the IP's talk page and ] for an explanation. In fact, if anybody should have been blocked then it's Neutralhomer for excessive edit warring against a user on the user's own talk page (Neutralhomer already knew it was a ''static'' address, and this was none of the exceptions in ]), a bogus vandalism warning and abusive use of the sockpuppet template very close to outing. Your cooperation may be needed to get the block reversed, so I would appreciate your comments in the AN thread. ] ] 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP reverted ''nine times'' and engaged in gross incivility. At this point, who was right about the WHOIS tag is no longer the issue at hand or the reason for the block. Note that I did not block for removal of the WHOIS template. I blocked because of edit-warring. If you want the edit-warring block to be lifted, another admin would be justified in blocking for incivility. I won't speak for anyone else, but I don't appreciate being called a "bully", being told that I am part of an abusive clan of administrators, being told "I have had enough of your bad faith and rude manner", and plenty more. I did try to explain things to the IP, but I was met with bad faith and ]. | |||
| ::One final point: If you want the IP unblocked, you'll have to talk to the three admins who upheld the block. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, Jpgordon has unblocked already so it's sort of moot. But still, I would be interested in a diff of one instance of "gross incivility". I couldn't find any in the edit summaries or in what is now on the talk page. "It is clear and obvious now that I am being bullied by the clan of administrators here." This was a correct factual statement at the time, a bit close to assuming bad faith, but understandably so in the situation. "I have had enough of your bad faith and rude manner". Here I would read "bad faith" as short for "bad faith assumptions" – a very common mistake –, which makes this again at least a very reasonable factual statement. "Why don't you grow up and show some decency if you have it in you." This was incivility, but hardly gross. | |||
| :::Overall, the IP was ''remarkably'' polite all the time. I can't stress this enough. Except for that last "grow up" comment the IP was '''extraordinarily polite and constructive'''. The IP merely disagreed with everybody else, which would not have been a crime even if he had been wrong. ] ] 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == My semi-protection requests == | |||
| Hi, I noticed you skipped my requests and would like to know why you skipped them and moved on to the others, If you decline I would like to know the reason why not just have it ignored, because I have to constantly edit those pages because their speculating deaths and fan fic for the following sequal since the film came out its getting tiresome I would appreciate if you looked at it instead of ignore it- thanks! ] (]) 03:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If I can't make a decision on something, I skip and leave it for another admin. Unfortunately, it seems no other admins feel like handling RfPP requests today. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, I'll see if they protected and if not I'll seek a 3rd opinion, but if i dont get a reason I'll re-submitt tomorrow thanks anyway for your response ] (]) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Another Monday morn and Misplaced Pages is still here... AKA... When you're aboot part 53.5 == | |||
| Just checking in this Monday morn and I see that ] still refuses to follow consensus and sources that his favourite band is no longer a band. This lone user has gone through many an IP sock trying to re-add his pov (which really = re-adding false info) in to the Queen and Queen discography articles. And has gone past a final warning to do so. A semi-P will stop him from IP socking. But won't stop his account. ]-] 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked, although I considered the IP behaviour as part of the account's behaviour. Looking at just the account, one may question the block. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Sheriff. Our little town is safe for a while. ]-] 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 1960s in heavy metal music went off its prot today and our IP troll jumped on it right away and blanked a whole bunch of ref that Bardin had put in to stop the IP from pressing his own pov in the first place. PS... this IP is also the same "metal-observer" IP user... so no good will come from him. {{User|86.153.18.124}} ]-] 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :1960s has actually been unprotected for a month and a half, but now that our friend is back, I'll reprotect. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked as well, although I'm a little nervous about this one. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No need to worry. Especially where Bardin stepped in on the page and added reliable sources for all the content that the troll had been repeatedly blanking before. Persistent habit of disruptive editing. And a completely valid block for a repeat offender. ]-] 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Braintree rock band == | |||
| So I have left you messages providing you with proper evidence of the rock band Braintree being on a National Chart which fulfills one of Wikis requirements. I have not heard from you at all. If I don't hear from you soon I will assume that you will not contest if I post again. | |||
| And if I have been doing it wrong, please let me know so that I do not make the same mistake. | |||
| ] (]) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Recommend you ask another administrator to look at the deleted page. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Paint Me Black == | |||
| Thanks for helping with the pagemoves/deletions, and for blocking ]. It took '''ten hours''' to get his mess cleaned up. I can't imagine someone being allowed to run rampant for as long as he did. <b>]</b> ] 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure thing. I've painted it black. Now an admin will have to perform the history merge, I suppose? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, the history moved just fine, since the page you deleted (Paint It, Black - if you're keeping score) was a copy and paste; the one I moved (Paint It Black) contained the entire history from when it had been moved by ]. <b>]</b> ] 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s>One of the users involved in this fiasco recreated the ] page and put in a redirect to the correctly spelt article. Problem is, there are four possible uses of that term on a disambiguation page, and this one needs to be redeleted. Thanks. <b>]</b> ] 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</s>Never mind: it's redirected to the disambig page. Let's see first if it stays that way. <b>]</b> ] 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That would be me then. I've clearly given my reasons for the redirect at ]. Further discussion (and not edit warring) should take place there. --] (]) | |||
| 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| No sooner did I speak than ] reverted my edit. I think a little "time out" would be appropriate here. <b>]</b> ] 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The disambig page makes more sense as the redirect target, so I agree with you about that. However, JD's edits are not vandalism, and should not be labeled as such. I suggest it should be left as a redirect to the disambig page, unless other editors chime in on the talk and agree with JD's view. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP: Kundra == | |||
| Enigma: Per NPOV the controversial edition by SusanLesch should be excluded from the page during the lockout. Please revert back to rev. no. 308597795 on BLP: Kundra. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Enigma: Per US-Law Kundra was not "convicted" as alleged. Definition (Conviction): The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (PBJ- Community service is not conviction). Please make the changes as soon as possible. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Oh goody. Socks. Should I block both of you? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: WP:RFPP == | |||
| Xymmax and I just processed a dozen requests . If folks like I can remember to check RFPP a little more often, hopefully that will make it a little easier on you. Thanks again for doing the drudgery protection work that few others wanted to tackle! — ] (]) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. :) I don't mind doing a lot of RfPP work, but it gets frustrating when there are no other admins looking at them for close to 48 hours. When I "signed up" to be an admin, RfPP was going to be my main focus anyway. thanks for the help, ]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there any benefit to a non-admin looking in from time to time? I obviously can't protect an article, but I could (theoretically) mark a clearly incorrect request as declined, and explain why. I've done this at ] from time to time with no complaints, but I don't know if similar actions at WP:RFPP would help or just complicate things. --] (]) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally wouldn't mind it. I used to do it occasionally before I became admin. As I recall, though, SoWhy didn't like it. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, if I do decide to try to help, I'll start out slow, and see if anyone starts screaming. Thx. --] (]) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I replied to a comment of yours there, though by the time you get this, you may have to check at ]. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Semiprotection == | |||
| I noticed that you semiprotected the Lockerbie bomber's page. I have only little experience with Misplaced Pages, but wondered whether such an action is meaningful and contributes to the well-being of Misplaced Pages. The reason given was "excessive vandalism", so I studied the history to find the vandalism. One change was labeled "vandalism" where in reality it was an attempted correction, a grammatical misunderstanding | |||
| (someone changed "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man" into "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain carrying a dying man", clearly interpreting this "bomber" as the airplane instead of the man) | |||
| and I noticed five IPs actually engaging in vandalism (67.193.163.252, 208.58.54.28, 24.188.28.254, 71.240.26.75, 75.168.199.213), but in all cases the vandalism was reverted almost immediately. That is the advantage of a current event that interests people: there are more readers, so vandalism is corrected quickly. | |||
| All in all, it seems to me that semiprotecting a page like this under these circumstances, where nothing unusual happens is counterproductive. It prevents more than half of the visitors in correcting some detail or adding new developments, so does more harm than good. I think. (In fact there are important new developments that are not covered, possibly because people are prevented in adding them.) ] (]) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I'm just looking for a little advice about this page. This is a page for one of the ] characters and the other day someone edited it saying that her mother was rumoured to be returning to the soap. There was no reference supplied so I googled this rumour and could find no evidence of it being true so assumed it was vandalism and took it out putting in the notes that if it is true then to resubmit quoting a referenced source. I looked again today and have found someone has resubmitted it but no source, again cannot find any evidence of this being true but this time have added the citation template to the page instead of deleting the rumour. | |||
| What I was going to do is give it a day or two for a refence to be submitted, if nothing is submitted I was going to delete the rumour and explain in notes that citation was asked for and none submitted so that is why it's been deleted. I'm just wondering, is this the best way to handle this? --] (]) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Lady Gaga is back == | |||
| I guess the week's protection on ] is over, because Lady Gaga is back via IP editing. Any chance of putting the protection back? ] (]) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == When you return to Wiki-online-ness == | |||
| Could you pay attention to and see if you have an opinion/path for me. Thanks! Have a nice day! Libs. ] (]) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User Ansehnlisch == | == User Ansehnlisch == | ||
Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009
| Please leave a new message. |
If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply. Thank you.
User Ansehnlisch
Hello there
I’ve started an ANI thread (here) on User:Das Ansehnlisch who you blocked temporarily some weeks ago. His user page redirects to another user, so here’s a link to the contribs page.
regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Maia Campbell
Why did you remove my contributions to the Maia Campbell page? The info is correct. I would appreciate it if you can put it back.
Dm23avg307 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unreferenced negative information about a living person. Find a reliable source before you consider inserting it in the article again. Enigma 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with BLPs!
|
The BLP Barnstar | |
| Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the barnstar. Sad to see the sunset, even though the userproject wasn't serving much purpose with the lack of reports. I checked in every few days, only to see nothing new each time. I guess my RfA didn't help matters. Enigma 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Most excellently deserved barnstar for you to Enigma.--VirtualSteve 07:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
re User_talk:Leveque#September_2009
Good block. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If that is the case, you may wish to compile evidence and think about a possible WP:SPI submission. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A user that you blocked has returned with a new account.
I noticed that you had blocked an account for User:Guitarforever. I believe that same person has started a new account called User:Guitarvan. Their edits and edit summaries are almost identical. Thank you. GripTheHusk (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was beaten to the block by Bubba.hotep. Enigma 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Can You
block Mario.brosfan because he keeps adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles , like he did to the article Frankie Jonas please. Ricky3374 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- What, for entering a name and birthdate? That's hardly a reason to block, and I don't see it as controversial. You're both edit-warring, though, and you need to stop. Enigma 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I was the one to stop him from doing it. I was trying to help. Ricky3374 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
wheel war, protection of 2009
FYI, I suspect there's no (ec) function on the protection code. So we can both hit "submit" and they'll go into the system. tedder (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. It's been filed as a bug before and this isn't the first time I've protected something at almost the same exact time as another administrator. When that happens and I'm the last one in, I just revert to the other protection. Enigma 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good to know. So I'll either do what you propose, or get in a page protection war with another editor. That'll make me famous someday. :-) tedder (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
94.192.38.247 on ANI
Since you were a blocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Purpose
I hate doing that on Misplaced Pages. I teach high school, and part of my lesson for the day was exploring what Misplaced Pages is and how it is the most honest record of human existence, etc, etc. Part of that lesson was demonstrating how the power of millions of contributors corrects mistakes almost instantly. I just finsihed with the last class of the day and won't be doing that anymore. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaltrav (talk • contribs)
mustafa halilsoy delete
what is the reason for deleting mustafa halilsoy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.249.2 (talk • contribs)
Couldn't agree with you more.
I bit that claim of his hook, line and sinker, I'm afraid. I am more than glad you blocked the guy. "Tendentious" doesn't begin to describe this. More like "troll" at this point. :) Frankly, I have never heard of a block of a single IP shutting down an entire school. Besides, shoudn't they be reading rather than editing? Just a thought. Anyway, you did the right thing and I'll keep an eye on this IP for awhile. Thanks! PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Article Format
Enigmaman, There is a lot of Tweeting and Blogging going on about my State Senator's wikipedia article and how people have been sabotaging it. I noticed that you had removed a lot of good information from his article. I was wondering if it needs to be in a specific format to be allowed to remain on that page or if you just deleted all of it since the article was being messed with. It is all accurate information that can be cited by multiple sources. Any info you could provide would be greatly appreciated. The article is "Mark E. Amodei". Thanks and have a good night! MySilverState (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It needs to be written properly in coherent paragraphs. As it stood, it was junk. See the articles of other politicians as an example. Can you link to the tweeting and blogging? Enigma 05:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Quickie
Anyway way you can suss out whether User:Mister sparky is a sock account for the permanently banned User:Be Black Hole Sun? Mr S is a relatively new account and has a fetish for discography pages.. which was BBHS's favourite haunting place. Whether the account is making good edits or bad edits... when you are permanently banned by community sanction... you are banned for good.... I think anyways. And BBHS is definitely banned from the Wik. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Why was the WWE Raw Guest Host reverted? If you look at the reference every guest host has had this remark on their page. You mentioned your reason; however, using that reason, every show he has appeared on will have to be reverted. --Ssgdonp (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: User: Koavf at AIV
What's complex about this issue, and why not AIV? Radiopathy •talk• 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Long time user, not a vandalism only account, very complex issue. If there is to be a block, it wouldn't come from AIV. AIV is for straightforward vandalism cases. Enigma 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well then, I'll ask you to take a look at his userlinks and see if a block is justified. Radiopathy •talk• 05:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That will take more than a few minutes, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Enigma 05:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look now, although it would probably be best located on a noticeboard. Enigma 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would recommend you take this to AN/I and make your case there. If you do, be sure to leave a message for Koavf to alert him to the thread. He wasn't the only one removing the speedy tag there. I don't find his overall behaviour to be especially satisfactory, but a block at this point would only serve to get me in trouble for making a unilateral move without consulting the community. At AIV, we're typically dealing with accounts/IPs that are vandalism-only. Koavf is clearly not a vandalism-only account, and as such, any block would lead to controversy. Enigma 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hah
I'd say your block summary for User:Prophaniti is one of the funniest things I've seen here in a while. --King Öomie 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- :) How did you come across it? After you brought it up, I just had to revert him. Enigma 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lurking at the genre troll page- this edit lead me to his list of contribs, with the current block posted at the top. --King Öomie 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear that it's still being used. Unfortunately, with Pat inactive, it hasn't received many updates of late. Enigma 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll bet there's a class somewhere where people are taught how to trace contributions and figure out how someone got from point A to point B. I also bet I'd find that class absolutely fascinating. --King Öomie 18:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd take that class. :P Enigma 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lurking at the genre troll page- this edit lead me to his list of contribs, with the current block posted at the top. --King Öomie 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw the block reason because I stalk follow this talk page. Awesome reason :-) OTOH, that sort of PC association is being held against User:Timmeh in his current RFA bid. Never go full retard, as they say. tedder (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Never. Deathknell of any serious actor. --King Öomie 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
dana jacobson
I don't follow why allegedly is being used with respect to her intoxication and reportedly with respect to what got her suspended. What was reported (in the article currently cited on her Wiki page) is that she also said "f--- Jesus" so I don't understand why that's being left out. It makes sense that ESPN took measures to hide footage of this event considering the inflammatory nature of the outburst but what Wiki stands to lose I don't know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.77.200.253 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- what wiki stands to lose? As far as I can recall (I have not edited that article in quite a while), the jesus remark was never properly sourced. A blog claimed it happened, but the reliable sources did not mention it until maybe later on. Enigma 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in on Utan
I sometimes forget how helpful the Utan list is. But it needed a cleanout since some of the accounts and numbers are long dormant. Perma-blocked Prophaniti has lots of IPs still within his reach. (he must be in a school. How have you been? I have been well despite recent wheel-spinning distracting from the cause. I miss Pat. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speak of the IP devil now The Real Libs-speak politely 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- And the devil makes a sock account The Real Libs-speak politely 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- already done. I blocked one of his regular IPs last night for six months. Thought that might help. Enigma 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- And the devil makes a sock account The Real Libs-speak politely 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Prophprotect
He's created a sock to keep his rant on his talkpage. I can haz IP block? --King Öomie 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Tedder took care of it. With any luck, he won't be able to resist reverting that page on more socks. Let's empty the drawer out. (Sorry to sound so gleeful. It just pains me to think of how many MetalObserver links he added). --King Öomie 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can't keep up with tedder! He gets to things on my talk before I read them. Enigma 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Mind saying why?
I noticed your drive-by comment elsewhere. It's not relevant to that situation, right? Mind telling me why? Did you know about Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Friday? I don't see where you commented there. Friday (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I never comment on RfCs. Is it relevant? Not really. Was just agreeing with the other person. Enigma 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not agreement- that's a silly distraction. If I'm a bad admin who should not have the bit, that's an issue. But it's a separate issue from whether someone else shouldn't have the bit. It doesn't help move things forward to mix issues together this way. Friday (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- It surely was agreement. One person says something and another agrees. As for why I bothered to agree, it's because I feel that you should make the first move. Enigma 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:66.223.246.3
This user has again vandalized List of jazz guitarists. Was previously banned for 24 hours. Is there any way we can protect the article? Thanks. Paul210 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking the offending editor is preferable to protection in this case. I have done so. Enigma 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Mandy Moore
Hello. Back in May, you voiced concerns about Mandy Moore's feature article status. Doesn't seem like anything has been done to improve the article since then, and when I came across the article recently, I had similar concerns. I'd like to nominate the article for FAR, but as an IP, I can't complete the nom. Could you do so for me? See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Mandy_Moore. Thanks. 71.227.179.189 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Will do it now. Enigma 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Done Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about the article and my suggestion. Enigma 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Gaza War
Censorship and Vandalism on Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead)
A mutual friend informed me that you might be able to help me with a serious problem that I've encountered editing this piece. Well documented, relevant, Sourced edits are continuously reverted because they don't present a particular point of view. I'm not presenting any point of view, just well-sourced relevant material. Please go to this site and you'll see what I am talking about. I have also published an article concerning insidious censorship on Misplaced Pages. When accessing this site, you'll see what I mean. Any help you can extend would be greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Before I even saw what the reverts were over, I see it needs full protection, so we'll start with that. Enigma 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)