| Revision as of 08:40, 26 February 2008 editJonny-mt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,646 edits →User talk:75.62.146.212: My bad!← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:01, 26 February 2008 edit undo151.49.32.87 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{/header}} | |||
| == Indianapolis edit war == | |||
| Good work for sorting it all out. You beat me to it. ;-) (I always try to reason with both sides first, which in this case, was rather hard to do...) ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">]]</span> 18:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for unblocking me. What should '''''I''''' do if the other person should try and do all this over again. I can almost guarantee this person is not into reasoning. I can tell they think that particular statement "is theirs" and will continue to put it back in. Thanks for any advice. ] 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::First, ]. Second, remember there is ]. Third, leave it for someone else to revert and invoke 3RR. More importantly though, try and attempt a discussion with the other user, explaining the reasons why their edits might be inappropriate. Point out the policies on advertising and NPOV. Ask them to detail the Eastern European cultural festivals and outline our policies on ]. As a general comment, the article (and particularly that section) appears to invite such edits. There's a lot of redlinks, external links, and lists, which makes today's edits not appear out of place. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for blocking ]. I was going to report it to ] but after I reverted the edit to my talk page I had to leave because of a small personal issue. ]]] 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Message about Vandalism == | |||
| Hi, i don't know if my ip address changes but it was 81.154.189.63 when I was told that my edit was reverted due to vandalism. I am sorry if this message is in the incorrect place, but I would like to know which edit this is, in which article, at least? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :Hi, you probably have a dynamic IP, so the message was probably for someone else. The message in question was probably regarding . -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Preemptive Anti-Spamming! == | |||
| I just looked at ] -- I keep an eye on the mesothelioma page, too. I'm pretty amazed at the level of detail, there. Do you track users with that much detail often? Or is it just when an IPvandal is particularly flagrant? --] (]) 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, unfortunately there are some individuals and commercial SEO companies who are determined to spam Misplaced Pages as much as possible, and it helps to identify all their links to determine the extent of their efforts. When we find them we tend to root it all out, and this type of detailing helps with our efforts. You can see more at ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Food brands list... == | |||
| I note you have reverted the addition of Robert Rosthchild Farm on a number of ocassions, | |||
| Care to explain why?. As the originator of the list concerned, I did check as to the firms | |||
| existence using Google, with there being considerable '''independent''' hits for the firm | |||
| concerned.. | |||
| ] (]) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you identify the edits or list in question. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == That page == | |||
| I've unprotected ] since it's been three months. We can lock it up again if they return. -- ] ]</sup> 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good move. I've more than doubled the length of the article :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Awesome! -- ] ]</sup> 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ]An editor has nominated ], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Openad | ] | ] }} and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDNote --> ] (]) 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages:Credentials (proposal)== | |||
| Hi. Please don't do copy and paste moves. It messes up the page history. Thanks. I take it you want ] moved over your copy at ]? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, sorry about that. I stopped editing Misplaced Pages for well over a year. I forgot the name and password of my last account (I think it was deleted, since no accounts on Misplaced Pages match my email address) and edited sporadically as an unregistered user. Well, I didn't notice that now all users now have a "move" button at the top of the screen. In the old days, you *HAD* to do manual page-moves unless you were an admin. I was doing two page moves: | |||
| ::* ] => ] | |||
| ::* ] => ] | |||
| ::I need both of those pages as redirects to ]. I noticed that button right after I did the first move and realized how stupid it was for me to do a manual page move. The second move I did was the proper way. The first wasn't. Thanks for catching it. ] (]) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK I'll take care of it, because now only an admin can make that move :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == My User Page == | |||
| Cheers for reverting the vandalism! Best regards, ] (]) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| One more entry. :) ]] 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I generally prefer to see good faith inoffensive usernames go through the "ask them to change their name" process. If they were going to stick around it may be worth doing that, but if it's just a throwaway we might as well leave them to contribute their thing. I think time would be better spent cleaning up the Miss Dominican Republic Universe template hell. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right-eo. ]] 14:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ANI == | |||
| Hey Zzuuzz, Thank you for notifying me of the thread on ANI. Regards, ]] 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A request for your consideration regarding ] == | |||
| {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #ff9; font-weight:normal;" |Hello fellow ] category member! | |||
| |- | |||
| !style="background-color: #ff9; font-weight:normal;"| | |||
| I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron ] and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. | |||
| But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. | |||
| I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my ] page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. | |||
| But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. | |||
| Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in ] as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. | |||
| Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. | |||
| I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. | |||
| Larry Pieniazek | |||
| ---- | |||
| NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in ]. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review ] to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. | |||
| |}...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++]: ]/] 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] | |||
| Another editor has added the "{{tl|prod}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also ] and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at ]. If you remove the {{tl|prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. <!-- Template:PRODNote --> ] (]) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to unblock former TOR exit nodes == | |||
| Zzuuzz, I checked the last 5000 blocks via ] (mostly out of curiosity), and found that | |||
| *{{Anonlinks|24.117.170.135}} | |||
| *{{Anonlinks|83.237.218.39}} | |||
| *{{Anonlinks|81.169.165.129}} | |||
| *{{Anonlinks|88.198.95.238}} | |||
| which you blocked as ] exit nodes, are no longer exit nodes. Barring circumstances unbeknownst to me, would you please consider unblocking these IP address? Thanks, ] 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks :) --] 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking IPs == | |||
| Hey, you told to me come by if I had any questions, so I'm doing just that. :) I see you blocked ] - would the time between each indicate an open proxy? I'm unsure of what is the current tell-tale sign that the IP is an OP. Best regards, ]] 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi. The first thing to try is a Google search - you will come to recognise the tell-tale spam and other signs to suggest you should investigate it further. I would really recommend that you list suspected open proxies at ], because it takes a fair bit of experience to identify and block them properly, but I'll explain this one. The template at the bottom of the IP's talk page and contribs page has a "Tor check" link. All ] nodes are published through a central directory which this check interrogates. You need to look for the "Exit" flag, in short, to do it properly you need to look at the router's exit policy (see ) and check that it allows exit on port 80, with no exclusions for Misplaced Pages's servers. I blocked this one for a year as it appears fairly static. Note that a minute earlier I had blocked another Tor node for only 3 months. See also the recent discussion at ]. In addition to Tor proxies there are also open HTTP proxies, open CGI proxies, and a load of other types of open proxy. But we can move on to those topics at a later date :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to archive that, because that is the best explanation I've ever received on Misplaced Pages. Really though, thank you. :) ]] 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, but I just noticed that I didn't actually answer your question. What would lead you to suspect it is an open proxy in this case is: two or more consecutive acts of identical vandalism in quick succession from totally different IPs, and an affiliation with a popular web forum populated by teenagers who probably regularly use open proxies (in this case ]). I would still recommend that open proxies are listed at ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Tor nodes no longer Tor nodes... == | |||
| I blocked four IPs for three years as Tor exit nodes on ], ]. Another user let me know that they are no longer coming up as Tor exit nodes and suggested that I unblock, which I have done. Do Tor nodes change like this frequently, or do I not have all the information? Cheers, -- ] ]</sup> 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Flyguy. See the recent discussion at ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup, read it while I was waiting for your reply. (It's amazing what you can learn by reading other threads on a talk page!) So I guess 1 week for Tor is the way to go. Thanks! -- ] ]</sup> 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Much obliged. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rollback feature== | |||
| I come to you to ask for permission to use the ]. Cheers. ] (]) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Earthbendingmaster. I'm a little uneasy at the lack of experience you have of the types of edits that this tool should be used for, but I'd be willing to give it a try. The rollback tool should never be used for content disputes, and edits such as . It should only be used for blatant vandalism. For all other types of reverts a more informative edit summary should always be used. Please indicate that you understand this, and recognise that any administrator (including myself gladly) will take it away if it's misused. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. I recognise that. I do not intend to use it for content disputes. Only to revert vandalism. ] (]) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you very much. I will use it wisely. ] (]) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Zzuzz. I have some concerns about giving him this tool. 4 days ago, he ] by making a web of page moves. I don't imply that he's never to be trusted again, but I don't think he should have rollback at this present moment. I do respect your decision, so I'll leave you to do as you see fit. --] (]) 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Rifleman 82. I did notice those moves, and the talk on his talk. One thing I will note is that nothing short of a block will prevent those moves again, save for having learnt from it. Please feel free to whip it away forthwith if you ever notice any misuse (I'll be checking anyway). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am truly sorry for that mess. I have personally apoligized to two users who fixed it. I promise it will not happen again. ] (]) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Excess only warning blocks == | |||
| Hi, please explain your excess only warning warnings on ]. A only warning is level 4, which means after one vandalism you should AIV report after the only warning. I would just like to remind you of that. Please answer the question on my ]. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| '''] '''<sup> ] </sup><sup>] ]</sup> 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I came here to say the same thing. There are many reasons not to use the only warning notices. One is that they don't work. Another, as seen , is that they are often not the only warning. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Discussion continued where it started, at ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Vand4Im Warnings == | |||
| (From my talk page) | |||
| Honestly? No. Just wait for admin to block them. An only warning is just that - an ''only'' warning. It should not be used more than once. It even says on it that it will be the only warning they will receive. If you just want to bug them while they are still vandalising, try pointing them to the sandbox lots of times instead of being wrong about what you're doing. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I find this a rather interesting comment. First of, im not trying to annoy them. Only users with a particular high vandalism rate tend to rack up so many level 4im's, which also means that they most likely (On the border of certainly) don't read their warnings. I also explained that i think that 20 vandalisms should result in 20 warnings, and not in just 3 warnings and a ban. This gives an incomplete image of a user which might be given some lenience if he doesnt seem like a repeated vandal. <br><br> If your that cross with it, i can settle for regular vand4 warnings instead of the vand4im level. They are a little less spottable in the edit mode, but i can live with that. Also, i find it rather interesting that i have been using vand4im's for around 650 vandals now, and never received a single complain about it from anyone. One last thing: As far as i know, vand4im's are used to signal serious abuse, but DONT give the right to report to AIAV without a second warning. The template clearly states "If you vandalize wikipedia <b>again</b>". Furthermore it should breach rule <Somethingsomething(Dont feel like searching the particular rule :-) )> that states that a user should be adequately warned. --]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::They probably read their warnings and think, "if they keep telling me it's an only warning, and then they give me another only warning straight after, do they really expect me to take any of this seriously?". If you're looking for a more appropriate warning after a final warning, use a level two one with a link to the sandbox, or if you really must then use a level three warning which has the big scary danger symbol. If you use another level four warning then you will be wrong, and the user will know it. But you're wasting your time with redundant warnings. They are intended to affect the user's behaviour, not the admin's. Admin's check for vandalism after a final warning, and look at the contribs to see how much of a vandal they really are. Admins usually completely ignore talk pages, and often clear them out because they they server no purpose if they are not affecting the user's behaviour. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, that might actually be true. I always expected vandals to be the type that simply had a laugh at warnings altogther. But perhaps there might be some that do take them seriously, and wont take several identical warnings seriously. I think that a level 2 warning might actually do, or maybe i could customize that template a little bit by adding a recent change patrol policeman as the icon. After all, i mainly use 4im to avoid double reports(Bit of visual difference makes it easy). Thank you for your advice on this, and happy editing to you :-) --]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==136.245.1.2== | |||
| Hi Zzuuzz, | |||
| Please note that an IP editor that you recently blocked has carried on vandalizing his/her own talk page with offensive edits at ]. Perhaps a full block is in order? Cheers, ]<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, yes probably the same person. As they're currently unblocked and could be doing worse I'm inclined to overlook a single talk page edit at this time, but if they carry on or vandalise the pedia... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 88.42.221.180 == | |||
| Hi - I'm getting open ports on 80, 81, 3128, 8000, 8080, and 8888 - but it might be inaccurate. That host is blocking all my TCP pings, so I had to fall back on OS detection, which is less reliable. ] | |||
| :Well that's strange, I'm not getting anything at all. Maybe it's rebooting. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==I am very very sorry== | |||
| I am very very sorry, but I am unable to find a link eith my vandalism warning, offered by you. | |||
| I have checked many a article that i have produced and edited. But I can find nothing at all. | |||
| Please may you recheck, or at least get back to me on this. | |||
| <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| Hello Zzuuzz. Sorry to bother you again. After that mess I caused moving the Darth Sidious redirect page to move Palpatine to Darth Sidious (which I was planning to move the redirect page to Palpatine but did not realize that when you move a article the previous name redirects to the new name); what do you suppose I do to redeem myself? I am truly sorry. ]]] 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Earthbendingmaster. The best way to redeem yourself, if you really think that is necessary, is to go and improve a load of articles. Learn from your mistakes, maybe apologise once or twice, and move on. Alternatively another thing you could do to redeem yourself is to become an expert on ] and (eventually) the ] process, so you could end up with 100% accuracy in all future page move decisions and even tell the admins how it should be done. It may take longer than simply not repeating any mistake, but it would be true redemption. The choice is yours really. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. I have apologized to the users who fixed it and have learned from that mistake especially. The last thing I want is people thinking I am a vandal. I have been trying to spot vandalism more. Thank you. Cheers. ]]] 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I would like to learn more about naming conventions and the page moving process. ]]] 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| well I reverted MER-C's edit by mistake caused by an edit conflict since I was reverting the Brewskater's edit..didn't mean too..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course. I hope you didn't mind being rollbacked :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WTF == | |||
| WTF DID YOU JUST SAY THAT I VANDALiZED WIKIPEDIA WTF? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==TOR block of 116.80.140.88== | |||
| Hey, I noticed that you've ], as a TOR node, which, . I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. ]] 09:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tick|18}} {{{1|'''Done'''}}} -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:EL protection == | |||
| Hi, I see you've blocked ] and protected ]. Would you please consider unprotecting ] or downgrading to partial protection? All the edit warring seems to have come from two anonymous IP editors who were trying to change a section. It's normally a stable and fairly uncontentious guideline page. Now that one of the IP addresses is blocked I don't think the page is going to be subject to any more edit warring. There's nothing I would want to edit, and no urgency - waiting a day would be fine too - I just think it sends out an unfortunate message when we have to protect the guideline and policy pages. Thanks, ] (]) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I see you've unblocked the editor....so, nevermind. But I hope we can get some resolution whereby people behave and page protections aren't necessary. Thanks, ] (]) 18:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Wikidemo. Er, yes. I think semi-protection would probably be appropriate given the circumstances. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==DYK nom== | |||
| *...that ''']''' was founded over 900 years ago by a ]? by ] and ] | |||
| OK? It will be one the main page in about 3-4 hours ] (]) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the work you put in. It should be a good article in time. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == DYK == | |||
| {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ], ''']''' was updated with {{#if:{{{4|}}}|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:{{{4|}}}|s|}} ''''']'''''{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, and ''''']'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} <!-- ], ] --> --] (]) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page revision == | |||
| I guess I either forgot the policy or wasn't aware of all the provisions. I was under the impression that talk pages were to be left alone, a feeling that was reinforced by other established editors in the past. Regardless, thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think a good rule is if you can restore the content, like once, then fair play. But it's not worth fighting over. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I'm a bit rusty when it comes to fighting vandals/blankers and the policies, it's a been awhile since I've spent an hour or two trying to help out. ] (]) 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == University of North Carolina at Wilmington vandal == | |||
| This person has been warned repeatedly and others have restored the link he continually deletes. I'm not sure why you decided Ncjon is not a vandal. | |||
| ] (]) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello. I removed your report to AIV as this was clearly not ]. However this did lead me to review your edits. I'm afraid I don't have the patience or diplomacy of other admins, but I'll put this the best way I can. If you continue adding links to your sites you are likely to be blocked and the sites blacklisted. The link you have been adding is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, nor is your continued insertion of it. I strongly suggest you stick to ] and steer clear of "tell-all sites". Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As I said above, I am not the only person who has restored the link to that site, which BTW, I do not administer. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Please take note of what I said. Thanks. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Wow -- you're an all-powerful wikipedia editor. I'm sure you're a toad without a life too. | |||
| ] (]) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for sorting this out. I didn't even realize I'd been reported as a 'vandal.' ] (]) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppet Krabs*/User:68.44.84.185 == | |||
| Hi it seems user, ] (]) is one of the Krabs* sockpuppets that writes nonsense; See ]. His MO seems to be the same (editing Bratz pages, making "normal" vandalism reverts on some pages to make him seem legitimate). From the last SSP, ], it seems the admin decided not to ban the IP. Whats the best way to go about this if his IP does not match any previous users but his MO is "similar" ? | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also it seems very similar to ] (]), who you blocked as a sockpuppet. | |||
| :Princess34 also seems to have made up a lot of facts about ], a Nestle product. What should be done about this since removing all the non facts is effectively blanking the page? ] (]) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Strongsauce, there are currently three IPs blocked due to Krabs, including the two mentioned above and 24.0.138.87, but finding more IPs does not seem to be a problem. This does look like a Krabs sock. I would suggest an insistence on verifiable facts, including bugging them on their talk page and deleting pages where they are unsupported by reliable sources, a checkuser for the current IP if it continues or if it starts sockpuppeting, and I'll keep an eye on the need for a block on that account. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've blocked both the account and the new IP. Drop me a note when you see the next one. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == people named john == | |||
| Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but it seems that you deleted the article on the band "people named john." I like many others here UGA are avid fans of this band. The article was deleted twice and both times the editor claimed that the band was not significant. Of course its not significant when looking at the big picture, but then again a lot of other things that have articles on Misplaced Pages aren't either. I really feel like this band is important and it's unfair that you deleted the article without even trying to find more about the band. thank you.] (]) 02:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Bravefanz | |||
| :Thank you for intending to contribute. Please see ] and ]. If you can provide multiple independent reliable sources which establish notability according to the guidelines, and can suggest some more encyclopaedic text for the article, I would be happy to reconsider the deletion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Main page == | |||
| Hello Zzuuzz, sorry to bother you again. I was not sure where to go, so I decided to ask an administrator. Is the ] in its own name space, or some kind of sub-name space (if that even exists)? Because normal articles, user pages, etc. all display their title at the top, but the Main Page doesn't. And also, the tab at the top that says what name space something is in, such as this one being discussion, well, it is actually user talk, but you know what I am talking about, says main page. So I was wondering if it is in its own name space. Thanks for your help. ]]] 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Earthbendingmaster. Main Page is in the article namespace, but has been customised because it's the default page. The hidden title and name on the tab are done by ] and probably some css. There has been plenty of discussion about what namespace it should be, for example ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. I am an administrator on a wikia, could I get the main page like this one, with the tab and hidden title? ]]] 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I think so. You would need to transplant the changes made for the main page in ] and ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you mean view and copy the source of it? ]]] 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You should probably view, understand a bit, and then copy. The main page title is hidden by one of the first lines in monobook.css: <tt>body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {display:none !important;}</tt>. You would have to check that an element with this id exists on your own main page, then add this line to your sitewide monobook.css. You could test it first in your own ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What causes the tab to say main page? ]]] 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Take a look in ] for the "Main Page layout fixes" section. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello again. This is just a random questions I figured you might know. Can administrators and bureaucrats be blocked, if yes, who can do it? Thanks. ]]] 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any administrator can block or unblock any registered account (within policy). See ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you are saying an administrator can block a bureaucrat and vice versa? ]]] 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, any administrator can block any user. Bureaucrats are just normal administrators with the ability to grant permissions. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I am familiar with the user access levels, but was not sure about administrators being blocked. | |||
| ::::::Could a blocked administrator unblock themselves? ] (]) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, see for example and ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] verification == | |||
| A couple of users have come to my talk page wanting to become verified ] users. See ]. Thanks. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please re-delete-- my DB notice must have been simultaneous with your deletion. Regards, ] (]) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tick|18}} '''Done''' -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposed change to {{tl|Proxyip2}}== | |||
| I'm looking for input from recent ] users regarding the above template. your input on ] would be appreciated, if you have any preferences regarding the TOR link in the template. ] (]) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == hi == | |||
| Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Misplaced Pages. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.) | |||
| Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.) | |||
| The article on ] mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet. | |||
| Can a cool admin stop two guys named ] and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Misplaced Pages standards. And if people's edits are automatically deleted, people won't want to get a user name and contribute in the future. | |||
| here's the New York Times piece... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07E4D91F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&fta=y | |||
| I used to love Misplaced Pages until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. ] (]) 07:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. ] (]) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| ] (]) has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small> | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> | |||
| :Thanks for catching mine too :) —<sup>]</sup>] 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both welcome of course.. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Username Hardblocks == | |||
| Thanks for pointing that out. I realized that I had been doing that initially, so I tried to go back through my old blocks and block them correctly. I thought I had fixed them all, but I guess not. Apparently, I still do it occasionally, because I had just blocked and still did it wrong, and didn't catch it. Thanks, again. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Gotta confess == | |||
| I love you <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Talk page deletions== | |||
| Actually, you'll see that I've recently done about 1,200 or so (actually I lost count over 800...) talk page deletions for old ] proxies that were either mis-marked or the TOR proxy was closed (normally due to a change in ISP user). I've been treating them similar to the ] deletion, as the users of these ISP's have probably changed (especially those that were TOR and left), and the 'new' user probably shouldn't be penalized. I did leave those that had very significant histories, those that were marked with other notes (such as schools - yes, some wiseacres had set up TOR nodes at their schools). If it does become a case of someone going on an off the TOR network, any admin has the ability to see the deletion history. Open proxies is a different story, if you check my work on ], you'll see that I've treated them 100% differently than these old TOR's. 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see | |||
| ] and tell me | |||
| ] of my newly | |||
| created <code>{{tl|Oldprodfull}}</code> ... would you use it, or update | |||
| it if you encountered it? | |||
| Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed | |||
| ] | |||
| and other ]? | |||
| Happy Editing! — <!-- '''~<includeonly>~~</includeonly>''' --> '''{{#if:|{{User|{{{1}}}}}|{{User|141.156.217.11}}}}''' <sub>21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</sub> | |||
| ==Oepn proxy== | |||
| Hello you recently denied to unblock an IP and then blocked it from asking why. It is certainly policy that you are supposed to soft block open proxy because Chinese editors can then access the site. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor_to_bypass_the_Great_Firewall under the heading soft blocks! I have found a currently allowed proxy to ask you this btw ] (]) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello. Unfortunately I protected the page because its previous users were using it extremely abusively, and I had to delete revisions from the history to remove libel. The page you point to is not policy. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok well may I continue with this account? ] (]) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::By all means. Please see the policy on ] if you haven't already. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for the heads-up. I thought my ears were burning! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kalakaumudi== | |||
| I saw your edit in ]. I request you to have some admin acivity on that page. A user ] is placing unencyclopedic text as part of some dirty politics. I tried to removed it twice but the user is reverting it. Thanks in advance--] (]) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello. I went to the article with a view to protecting it but found that the article had settled down to some extent and was also a complete mess. I consider it more likely that this user will be blocked than the article protected, but the best way this can happen is if the referencing for the article is improved. It's on my watchlist now. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Good. Edit war is happening in that article for the past one week. I do not want to violate the ] policy. That is the reason why I have stopped reverting it. | |||
| The article needs to be protected only from the user (]). This user is inserting unencyclopedic text (and image) as part of some dirty politics. | |||
| You can see that one article that is created by this user has already been deleted. See ]. Even the text and image that are inserting by the above user in this article is also a part of the same politics. Moreover the deleted article is realted to this article.--] (]) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Even your edit is reverted ]. All the irrelevant text is back --] (]) 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for blocking this IP. I was not sure I should have done it. ] (]) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. I was going to leave you a note (and did leave one at AIV before it was cleared). It's clear that the IP was static and not shared for at least the last day, so I blocked it for two. Time will tell if it should be blocked for longer. Much confusion was caused by using the {{tl|ISP}} tag instead of the more appropriate {{tl|whois}}. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry about that--that was . The user had been vandalizing from ] before their favorite target page was semi-protected about a week and a half ago, so I figured I'd use {{tl|isp}} just in case. Lesson learned :) --]-]] 08:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||