| Revision as of 13:59, 27 March 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:43, 15 August 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| {{Shared IP|]|host=ip68-231-26-111.ph.ph.cox.net}} | |||
| == Going forward == | |||
| As you may have seen, I did the work of opening an SPI and providing evidence. Several socks are now blocked. If you suspect socks of the same editor have appeared again, please post to ] ('''with evidence'''). If you are unsure how to format your report, post to my talk page (again, with specific evidence) and I will handle it. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :for the love of god thank you--] (]) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your talk page additions == | |||
| Adding to talk pages, implying that I have blocked the IP or have determined it's a sock, is not good. Please do not do that again. If you think an IP is block evading, you can add <nowiki>{{subst:uw-socksuspect|Spliff Joint Blunt}}</nowiki> and provide evidence on the SPI case page. Also, please read over ] and respond if you wish. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2015 == | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. ]|]|] 10:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> | |||
| :dude you just attacked me and called me a plaguirist!!!--] (]) 10:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not an attack. Continue the conversation on my talk page (which is where you took it). ]|]|] 10:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Under "Recap – Prev Episode". Perfectly matches what's on Misplaced Pages - proof it has been copied to here. ]|]|] 11:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::dude is that all you have for evidence!!! the webpage you quote is just a sniffer it finds thing already written and just becomes a file cabinet for them - you need to show a citation - a thing SIGNED by some author!!!--] (]) 11:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You need proof that you created it. If it's found on another website, it's reverted. It's really as easy as that. ]|]|] 11:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::again dude are you brain dead the webpage you show is just a sniffer - it runs around the internet and just copies stuff - i am sure it has billions for wiki lines it has stolen!!! | |||
| :::::::None of this you can prove. ]|]|] 11:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Neutral party here, i'm with the IP on this one, see their synopsis for ep6 they changed it..its not always necessary that things were copied from other sites, its also possible others sites copy stuff from wikipedia; infact, its more likely and quite prevalent..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 12:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|::::::::}} One simply needs to Google the summary to see that it is on ''multiple'' sites. Do you have a cache for each of them? ]|]|] 12:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's definitely on multiple sites with no clear indication of where it originally came from but, since it wasn't originally from this site, we have to treat it as a copyright violation. --] (]) 12:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::have you see how the edits were made by the IP? It was not a single edit, but multiple ones within minutes such as , , which collaborates with the link provided and then over 5 hours later, the IP makes which the site mentioned above uses as a prequel option in their ..as i said, its the other way around, they are copying US.--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one week''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. <br /> — ] ] 03:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You can't post. Over and above your block, the page is now protected. (cur | prev) 17:29, 6 December 2015 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) m . . (126,652 bytes) (0) . . (Changed protection level of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Persistent sock puppetry ( (expires 05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)) (indefinite))) (undo | thank) <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 03:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::i couldnt even defend myself - how fair is that!--] (]) 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::wiki proves again - whole thing is absolutely pointless - please explain to me in terms even a 3-year-old can understand how it happens that the other guy is also not looking at the same block - he posted 7 reverts himself!!! all i ever see here is warrior assistance, sock puppet assistance, bias assistance, people that dont have the slightess clue what they are sayijng getting assistance --] (]) 03:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *# ] | |||
| *# Blanking your talk page when others tried to communicate with you | |||
| *# <br /> — ] ] 04:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Some words == | |||
| Look, I think you're a net positive to Misplaced Pages but not if you set the attackmeter to 11 every time someone reverts you or questions your edits. If that happens, you'll probably be treated like most IPs who disrupt or vandalize. So, question for you - assuming that you get reverted in the future (and it's going to happen), how can we stop the situation from quickly deteriorating into a battlefield? --] <sup>]</sup> 04:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edits == | |||
| The New York Times is a notable source for coverage, the current events section is also not an article so policy regarding articles wouldn't apply. Like it, don't like it the Brussels comments received coverage from reliable sources. - ] (]) 15:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| jan 30, 2016<br> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Portal:Current_events/2016_January_30<br> | |||
| South Korean golfer Jang Ha-na makes first albatross on par-four in LPGA history at Bahamas tournament. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-31/jang-ha-na-makes-historic-albatross-in-bahamas-lpga-event/7127812 | |||
| --] (]) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{done}} | |||
| ] (]) 08:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <br><br>Recent deaths "Sidebar"<br> | |||
| Jan 27, 2016<br> | |||
| ] = "over 1100 patents"!<br> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portal:Current_events/Sidebar&action=edit§ion=5 | |||
| --] (]) 06:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2016 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] ] ] 12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| I am normally lenient on people who make good faith edits, but you have , and one the latest sets of edits I find is an edit war, so I feel a block is correct. ] ] ] 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::right so you dont care that the other editor, ----------------- User:Spirit Ethanol --------------, has been indefinitely blocked and is posting endless bias on wiki!? ((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)) --] (]) 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::he is laughing at you right now and setting up his next sockpuppet to laugh some more--] (]) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::just to be clear - this is what i posted over at the admin boards before this admin blocked me to ]-assist as a ] for an indefinately banned user sockpuppet - "::my defence is as follows - how many stupid admins exist at wiki? - one after another after another - the above user is a sockpuppet created just last Nov 2015 - I am almost certain it is just more of this sockpuppet in one of all his hundreds of block evasion activities creating endless accounts to war at wiki - he is as follows: ((] edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)) - as usual he expects that some idiot admin will fall for it again and again and again - and guess what?, it works every time!!!"--] (]) 19:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::as per EXPLICITELY STATED IN WIKI'S OWN RULES at ] "Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors - '''Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.''' This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. - Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. See also the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry."--] (]) 19:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, given that the other user has been blocked, but only for 24 hours, I think it's fair to say that administrators have reviewed the other user's edits and do not share your views that (s)he is abusing multiple accounts. —''']''' (]) 14:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::no, what is fair to say is that the admin who blocked me is lazy and did not figure out that the sock is indeed obviously the blocked user of endless evasions as i have said!--] (]) 20:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==May 2016== | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> | |||
| ] '''Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an ] has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.''' | |||
| <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:88%;">( • • • • ] • ] • • }} • ] • • ], unblock request}}}} checkuser] ()) </span> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the ], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the '']''. If the block is a ] or ] block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the ].<br><small>Please note that there could be appeals to the ] that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.</small><p> ]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:Blocked talk-revoked-notice --> | |||
| *Note I've also blocked ] as they are clearly the same editor.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:43, 15 August 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.