Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
If you leave a message here, I will reply on this page, so be sure to add this page to your watchlist. If I initiate a thread on your talk page, and you reply here, I will reply on your talk page, and possibly here as well, if the conversation gets long.
My wheel-warring policy:
Admins: If you see me make a logged action that you think I should not have done, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo it without asking for my permission. However, if I marked the action as being done after running a checkuser query, or as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you should ask me or another checkuser before undoing it. In any case, if you do revert one of my actions, I would appreciate it if you tell me that you did so. Thanks!
I want to know: Should Misplaced Pages allow the TPS IP address one last chance of editing before the block expires without Vandalizing Misplaced Pages? If someone from the TPS address does vandalize Misplaced Pages, we could always block them indefinitely. Please reply ASAP. Veraladeramanera (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Information about the American Tomahawk Company on Misplaced Pages is incorrect.
The American Tomahawk Company® is a division of Cold Steel, Inc. americantomahawk.com is using our registered name ILLEGALLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.233.62 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Block confusion
I just blocked 75.21.68.207 without realizing you had already blocked. Sigh. Second time I've done this in the past few weeks. I think I need more sleep.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked up on his contributions and he does not have a vandalism-only account; his recent actions were misguided, but were a one-shot overreaction to a disagreement with another user. I believe your indefinite block was inappropriate for the situation. Please review his case. I have provided more information on his talk page. Thanks, —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not dispute that he disregarded the warnings. However, he was disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and while that is certainly unacceptable conduct, it was not a random bout of vandalism fueled by antisocial or trollish urges. I believe the user was venting frustration at a perceived insult. I am not requesting that the user be unblocked immediately; I just believe that because the user's inappropriate conduct had a specific, recognizable trigger, and because the user has no prior history of blowing up like this, an indefinite block is not warranted. If it were to happen again, I would have no qualm with an indefinite block, but in this case, I am inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for your consideration. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of users that are attacking with their usernames that is on the second or third page or the user creation log.--Abce2 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... So you are "teaching these students a lesson" by changing things on Misplaced Pages to false info??? Perhaps you should speak to them and not manipulate this encyclopedia... ZooFari02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I am so sorry to bother you again. I was wondering if you could put a semi-lock on Tom DeLonge's[REDACTED] page again please?
We have people changing his name to names they know aren't his. We also have people adding in random junk that has nothing to do with him or messes it up in general.
Also people are messing with Travis's as well, I'm just not sure it is lock requesting worthy yet.
MySummerJob (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is becoming a nuisance. The last five vandal reversions I did don't show up in the articles histories because every single time you beat me to it. Yes, that's five times in a row. Can I maybe interest you in a large glass of vodka, a handful of valium, or something else that'll slow you down a bit? ;-) Yintaɳ 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to edit the page for fashionistas - currently it references a pornographic show that has little to do with fashion.
fashionistas is categorized under pornography when it should be categorized under fashion. The page is basically advertising a pornographic show and not providing an accurate description of the term
the generally accepted description of fashionistas refers to individuals within the fashion community and followers of fashion.
I would appreciate if you would allow the changes to the correct description.
Please re-instate the semi-protection to the article, we are about to enter the transfer season when vandalism becomes more intense. The protection was added for good reason after several attempts at adding it on a temporary basis. This issue has been monitored several times in the past. If you think it should be removed, please discuss the merits before taking action. Also note that the first edits made to the article (which is a Featured Article BTW) have been considered vandalism and been reverted (note this was not by me). Paul Bradbury22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, someone asked me to try unprotecting it since it had been protected for a year, and being as I am completely ignorant as to British football schedules, I unprotected it. It should be protected now again. J.delanoyadds23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you using the main version or lite version. When you click on a revision, sometimes, it doesn't work. -Porchcrop03:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the lite version. I don't really have many problems with it, other than when I run it on Vista, sometimes it crashes randomly. J.delanoyadds03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I had that kind of a problem, too. I would click to the next revision and it wouldn't do anything. I think my Internet connection is too slow. So I stopped using Huggle months ago. But that was before there were two separate versions. Useight (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude,you are fast!Was to revert the vandalism on the gang signals page,and took a undo,saw the next edit just in time to prevent an edit war.Cool.:) EaswarH (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I posted this about the "Tip of the Day" being broken but I may have chosen the wrong place to do it because no one appears to have seen it. Do you know of a better place? Thanks, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________
I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi J Not sure if you remember Volvo B9TL (talk·contribs), who you blocked following our short talk at User talk:J.delanoy/Archive 15#Block review. I had subsequently also blocked the static IP of the editor, and had an on and off discussion with him at User talk:24.219.124.240. In a few days the 1 month block of the IP is going to expire, and there are three possibilities I see:
Do nothing, and let him create a new account
Reblock his IP, for fear that he hasn't learnt anything
Unblock his primary account so that he can resume editing through that one, and possibly extend the account creation block on the IP
I'm not blocking people that often, so I'm unsure what the best course of action is. #3 seems to make the most sense to me, since we can keep an eye on the account that way for a while. The IP was static for a month now so preventing him from creating more sock accounts in the next two or three months should be easy. However, you indefed the editor for a reason, and from my conversation I really don't see him as a constructive editor anytime soon. What do you think? Amalthea23:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that probably the most logical thing would be to just let the block expire, and go from there. I indefed him for sockpuppetry, so if he shows up again, I suppose you or I (or someone) can get a checkuser again. He was operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts, so I guess if he does do what he did before, we will get at least some good contribs. J.delanoyadds23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he's just really really young, judging both from his userpage (which might be false; looking at the IP he doesn't live in Hongkong either) and from his edits. I also have a hard time finding any constructive edits of his, so I don't think we gain much if we let him start another account; The Sock That You Know seems preferrable to me. Amalthea23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I made the page Jacob McClintock but I'm just not signed in as Justastud15. I would just like to know, why the edit I made was constructive? I added his nickname, nothing more. He confirmed that it was his nickname so that would be used as my source (so don't throw that crap at me). 68.188.29.77 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC) (Justastud15)
I am writing wiki pages for the members of the band A Good Fight. I wrote the copy for the page myself annd made sure to not copy any other source. I was asked to use a pic I submitted to the A Good Fight Facebook page. Please reinstate Rizz Woods asap.
Thanks
Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goprazorback (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the page because the text is on Facebook at the location I linked to in the deletion log. You cannot just copy and paste websites to Misplaced Pages unless they say that the text is available under the terms of the GFDL. J.delanoyadds02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi. I've been trying to do a lot of RC patrolling and CV work recently, using user:Lupin's old tools. I'm finding it's often just too slow these days, and half the time intermediate edits seem to screw up my reverts. Thus I would like to request the rollback tools, in particular becasue I would like to use Huggle as per this suggestion. Thanks! C.U.T.K.D08:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider banning Peterbadgerly from all 9/11 articles? The users contributions have been entirely unhelpful, and the fact that they are using sock puppet accounts should result in an increased sanction. Jehochman12:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for one month. J.delanoyadds 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
