Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 6 July 2006

User:Essjay/talkheader User:Essjay/Talk TOC

Knowing you,

This made me chuckle. :-) Netscott 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Essjay, you're needed in Operating Room 12 for a circumcision!" :D Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Best get to it! Chop chop! ~Kylu (u|t) 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Some CSS code ...

I wanted to approach you to admit that I have just "borrowed" some of your CSS code while trying to get some things remodeled to look simpler on my user page. It was not by any means a wholescale appropriation of your user page — just enough some of the code that comprises the icon-clickthru and basic framework of how you created your "Useful Links" section. I wanted to complete the coding first so that you could see it and hopefully deem it an innocuous-enough borrowing to be acceptable to you, but I am also notifying you so that if you are uncomfortable or unhappy with me borrowing same, I could immediately revert back to an earlier version that did not use your code. The areas which you can view are User:WCityMike/User Page Header/Meat, which is descended from User:Essjay/Header/3; User:WCityMike/User Page Header, which is descended from User:Essjay/Header/1; and User:WCityMike/Clickthru and User:WCityMike/Clickthru/3, which are pretty much appropriated wholesale. Please drop me a line to let me know if you find my usage of those particular parts of your code acceptable, or if you would prefer I revert back. I hope you are not offended by this, and if you are, I extend my apologies in advance. — Mike (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sweet mother of God no! I don't mind people stealing stuff at all; that's what I put it there for! There are so many people running around here with userpages drafted off various versions of mine that I feel like Father Abraham. Feel free to steal as you need things; if I didn't want it to be reuseable, I should have been smart enough not to release it under the GFDL! ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) — Mike (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

I wasn't sure if it was Lightbringer or not, I thought it was an impostor, so that's why I ran the check. --Sunholm(talk) 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In order for us to be able to run a check, you have to demonstrate *why* you think it is Lightbringer. It's obvious for the bottom one, but there is no explanation of why you think the top two are Lightbringer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Teaching my granny to suck eggs (WoW socks)

No doubt you've already done this but I'll ask anyway - as well as running check user on the IP you have also done it on the non vandal accounts to check if the claim that the IP is dynamic is true? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I could find no evidence of the type of dynamic behavior that would provide an alabi. The user who is currently using it and claiming dynamic behavior has been using it as long as we have records for, as have the vandals. I've seen a lot of dynamic IPs, but never one that switches back and forth between the same two users every few hours for a month. It very well may be the case that the IP is long-term dynamic and will be reassigned in a year, but certainly has not been reassigned back and forth, every few hours, to the same two people. :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a dynamic IP, if you switch off the router (leave it off for 24 hours at least), then you get a new IP, so it really is dynamic. --Whithulme 09:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that can happen, but you don't keep getting assigned the same IP over and over again, and you certainly don't have it go to a vandal, back to you, back to the vandal, back to you, back to the vandal, back to you, every ten minutes for a month. The vandal was on the IP within minutes of the "legit" user having used it, and the same pattern had been repeating for quite some time. I've been doing this long enough to know when an IP is acting dynamicly and when someone is tyring to cover their tracks, especially someone who has a long, long history of sockpuppetry. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to be a good contributor. Oh and I certainly know that explanation. --Whithulme 09:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm yeah...about that....

Yeah, I accidentally closed it. I was tired, gimmie a break ;-). Thanks for spotting my mistake and reverting it. -^demon /19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem! :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser block

Looks like you blocked an IP but now the user has registered as

I blocked the IP based on a great deal of WOW vandalism coming in off it (See the post above from Theresa Knott); given that the responsible individual was attempting to hide his extracurricular vandalism and has now stated that he's left the project, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if this is simply his most recent sockpuppet (he has a long history, see the checkuser results related to his RfA). If someone wants to assume good faith and unblock, that's fine, but my estimation is that the WOW vandalism will resume immediately, at it may be a few more months before someone figures out what's going on and checks the IP again. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WOW_socks.2C_.7B.7Bunblock.7D.7D.2C_.26_more before you do. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, for the record. --Whithulme 09:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article request

Mister Essjay - I'd like to request an article on Advocatus dei (God's advocate) Raul654 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Article writing? Is that for the encyclopedia thing I keep hearing we have on here? Oh, and it's Doctor Essjay, you lowly Ph.D. candidate! ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgewiliamherbert and Todd Bridges

When I was looking into this, I thought both accounts might be socks of Biff loman9 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who was blocked for incivility, with the block extended to indef for socking through a bunch of IPs including 70.49.240.232 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Georgewiliamherbert and Todd Bridges and this edit for an example of why Whoohookitty blocked him.) But I suppose that would have already come up. Thatcher131 11:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nice to see you around again, too. Thatcher131 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

70.49.240.232 didn't turn up in my check, but then, I was only checking to confirm the connection between the two, not to discover other sockpuppets. That's why the scope of the check is so important for people to define; we usually only check to determine what is asked. I'll look into it further. (And thanks, I'm not back doing it all, just filling in a bit.) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Further checking indicates that a connection with Biff loman9 is likely. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)