This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tearlach (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 12 March 2007 (→Block of Pigsonthewing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:11, 12 March 2007 by Tearlach (talk | contribs) (→Block of Pigsonthewing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:Heimstern/archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Archive:Feb-Nov 2006
Archive:Dec 2006-Jan 2007
Archive:Feb 2007-present
User:Serafin
Serafin is evading block again. Special:Contributions/210.245.160.188 Unfortunately he is a very biased person, and seeing as you have a German username, it reflects badly, as it reinforces his delusion that there is a secret coalition of German people hating on Poles. eprhaps get a number of admins to help keep up on this, and block all of his IPs and sockpuppets, as he keeps creating more and more, here and on the German wikipedia. Is there no way to block his IP range so he can't go around it again?
--Jadger 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
again Special:Contributions/168.215.123.44
--Jadger 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure if this is the same person, but Special:Contributions/206.117.32.31. he is editing Serafin's old stomping grounds Nicolaus Copernicus and Jan Dzierzon, making the exact same edits as Serafin had been doing previously. Also, making anti-German quips here:
thanks --Jadger 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thank you, I notice he also just edited Jan Dzierzon again, or whom I would believe is him. uses a similar anon IP and makes exact same edit.
--Jadger 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you did this intentionally, but you blocked one of his anon IP addresses for only one week, and he has begun "editing" again before the end of his ban. Special:Contributions/131.104.218.46
--Jadger 08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think User:Serafin is back with some random IPs again, check recovered territories Jan Dzierzon for example, a number of random IPs are reverting to the last version by one of Serafin's puppets, and using the same type of edit summary.
--Jadger 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
3RR violation
Hmm ... so by breaking the 3RR rule, the other editor got what he desired? Interesting way to deal with this, IMO. Duke53 | 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- edited to add: It would have been tough to give him a warning since he made all four edits in the space of 12 minutes. Duke53 | 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question here or on my talk page. He got his desired action by breaking the 3RR rule ... is this now an effective tool to use when you want to make such changes? Duke53 | 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3RR warning
Thank you for the warning, and not the all out ban. I am attempting to resolve this through discussion, but I am skeptical based on the other party's discussion history. Can you offer assistance if he refuses to negotiate? Ebtunc2006 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What about
This ? Reverting to a poorer previous version pretending the additions and changes made are "unneeded" (he never ever added something useful to the article, remember). Please do at least warn him to stop one and for all to behave like a destructive fool. Thanks. RCS 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean i could go mess around in any article i want, reverting randomly to prevous versions ? Or is he the only one allowed to ? RCS 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
For blocking that anon-IP vandal. Much appreciated! --Tenebrae 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- With pleasure! BTW, judging from the term here, which I don't even want to repeat but which I'd never heard before he'd vandalized my User page, it looks as if
- 69.156.104.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- is the same as:
- 64.231.212.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
- How does one guy get to so many computers? :-) Thanks again,--Tenebrae 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Spasmodic Dysphonia Sciencewatcher
Regarding what is below. A person named sciencewatcher keeps trying to add this in for self-interest. "Sciencewatcher" runs a clinic to cure this disorder and wants to be able to cite this in order to recruit patients. If you look the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders quote, you will notice it is in stark contrast to the article she misuses (regarding non-organic voice disorders) to talk about SD and stark contrast to the medical consensus on spasmodic dysphonia. SD is not a non-organic voice disorder, it is a laryngeal dystonia. As compared with other funcational dyphonias, spasmodic dysphonia patients do not exhibiti psychological features inconsistent with the population at large. It's not an editing war. It is simply a reversion back to the reliable and valid information that once was there, based on the information that is cited in hundreds of thousands of verifiable journal articles on Spasmodic Dysphonia. This person wants to charge patients thousands of dollars to attend a clinic with magical super power healing. And THAT is misuse of Misplaced Pages on the park of a professional for personal gain and patient harm. Arguing with sciencewatcher is useless, an therefore NO point in discussion with sciencewatcher and myself on edits and reverts. So that is why I cannot take that route.
Thank you, DebENT
You are clearly edit warring with Sciencewatcher. Please stop reverting his or her edits; instead, discuss it on the talk page. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing for disruption. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Block of Pigsonthewing
I'd ask you to reconsider your block on Pigsonthewing following the report here. Notably, because the report contains several incorrect statements. For instance, neither the second nor fourth 'revert' restored the text, "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com", as claimed (in bold print)... simply clicking on the links provided in the report itself clearly shows that text was already present in both cases. Likewise, the second 'revert' did not restore the text, "She has also taken legal action against the search engine " or "Details of the legal request can be read at ChillingEffects.org" as claimed - again, both were already present and the edit was actually adding 'ref' tags around them and rewording slightly. Et cetera.
Further, the supposed 'BLP issue' behind the edit war here is a statement to the effect that McKeith took legal action against Google... only that has been reliably sourced to The Guardian and Google (see note at bottom linking to documentation at Chilling Effects).
There was certainly edit warring, by multiple parties, but that 3RR report was less than accurate. A two week block of just one participant in an edit war, based on false statements from another participant, does not seem equitable. --CBD 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded. I've also commented to SlimVirgin about this:
- SlimVirgin's WP:ANI report : makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert and 4th revert , they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler.
- SlimVirgin is defending this as action on a 3RR violation , but I simply can't see how those diffs cited to WP:ANI constitute reversions. Tearlach 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Joker vandal is back
This time he's using User:209.53.181.24. You've been so helpful, and I hate to ask, but geez, some people.... Thanks so much--Tenebrae 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
NCLR
I would appreciate it if you would revist this page NCLR --evrik 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not looking to have the IP blocked, just to have people making some pretty slanderous statements come out of the shadows. --evrik 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- C'est la vie. --evrik 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks re Cold War
Just wanted to say "thanks!" for your swift semi-protection of Cold War yesterday. What a relief!
Also, I will be sending you an email to ask about something (not related to Misplaced Pages) that I saw on your user-page. Cgingold 16:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the input, as a new admin (just today) I was wary of not knowing if I was right. I requested a review at the noticeboard about the same time you replied. Thanks for the link too (very informative). John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My Block
You stated "I was going to block him for 4 days". Four days for what? Jooler 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at my block log. you will see that all bar the first one were reversed bebause they were imposed incorrectly. It does matter because the reasoning behind the removal of my edits was not justified. Jooler 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well it would be, if your statement hadn't been used as an after-the-fact justification for the block of 72 hours. See Talk:Gillian McKeith () Jooler 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
ALL bar the first one (2 years ago) (including the one hour block) were imposed incorrectly. Jooler 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
By your own admision you took a prejudiced view of the length of time that a block should have been imposed based on a brief look at my block log and not on the situation itself. Or if you did you chose to believe the falsehoods purported by SlimVirgin. And you made a statement about this as a response to Macken79 question on the 3RR incident page. Your statement is now being used against me. It is this issue that I am taking up with you. You have now said to me "maybe 4 days would have been too much" which I'm glad to hear. I hope you can now see that you should have understood the situation a little bit better before making that comment. No hard feelings. Jooler 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW your block of Pigsonthewing was wrong and needs to be reversed. There was no breach of 3RR. Slim's summary of the reverts was flawed. See User talk:SlimVirgin Jooler 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)