Jump to content

User talk:Ixfd64/archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contents of this page were archived on July 11, 2006. They are no longer active and are preserved for historical reasons only. Please add new comments to my current talk page instead. Thanks.

Archives: November 15, 2005 · February 24, 2006 · May 18, 2006 · July 11, 2006 · October 26, 2006 · March 25, 2007 · February 20, 2008 · March 8, 2009 · October 11, 2009 · February 14, 2011 · January 22, 2014 · November 15, 2016 · October 10, 2020 · August 25, 2022 · current · search

Kevin1243

[edit]

Thanks for the fix on my user page. Looks like I upset somebody Kevin 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

[edit]
The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
♫Bucketsofg✐♪

Undone autoblocks

[edit]

I noticed you undid an unusual autoblock #172051 which related to User:Curpṣ a pretty obvious attempt to impersonate User:Curps. Wikipedia:Username says "Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately. The IP address of these users should be left autoblocked.". Now I guess there could have been some sort of collateral damage you some how know about, but since you never leave a comment when undoing these autoblocks...

Others I noticed being undone over the past week or so obviously take a level of WP:AGF I don't have. Such as

--pgk(talk) 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Judging by the style of these usernames, it seems that the majority of them were registered by the North Carolina vandal. I usually leave the IP addresses of vandals blocked. Unfortunately, this vandal is an AOL user, and leaving such IPs blocked could hamper many legitimate contributors. --Ixfd64 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will given some had been outstanding for quite a while before you unblocked and only caused a single autoblock actually suggests they are not AOL, Also no one had requested unblock because of them, suggesting no widespread collateral damage. How you can guess they are the NC vandal is beyond me, but assuming you are correct the NC vandal *isn't* an AOL user (UUNET I believe) and has been the subject of range blocks before with little or no collateral damage. Given the obnoxiousness of the names I suggest you leave such names blocked unless there is compelling reason to believe there is legitimate collateral damage. e.g. 4-5 autoblocks within a short space of time which is typical of AOL, or a known good contributor reporting collateral damage. --pgk(talk) 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looked it up on WP:AN "63.19.128.0/17 is the range used by the "North Carolina vandal" (aka Regara, Jake Remington/Rattlesnakes, Luxembourg, per-capita, etc etc etc). It's occasionally range-blocked to deal with him." --pgk(talk) 07:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat confused. You probably know about the Guinness vandal, the guy who often attacks the Guinness article and the daily featured article. It was initially believed by several admins that the Guinness vandal was an AOL user. However, CheckUser shows that the Guinness vandal is the same person as the North Carolina vandal. See User:Sally Spam and User:March 2001, for instance. That would imply that the North Carolina vandal is an AOL user. --Ixfd64 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is possible that the vandalism was done by two different users with the same modus operandi. After all, the North Carolina vandal has been known to imitate other vandals. --Ixfd64 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting nonsense

[edit]

Hi, thank you for reverting the nonsense on the article Nala (The Lion King). I appreciate your help. Have a nice day. --Starionwolf 03:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage big time

[edit]

Check the block log. I think your username block has caused a massive AOL block. --Jay(Reply) 23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL/IP Autoblocks

[edit]

FYI -- As an AOL user, I've been dealing with autoblocks all week on the same user name issue (information below). Although other admins have been very helpful, repeatedly releasing the block(s) for me, I'm sure that has damaged the effectiveness of your original action. I appreciate the fact that I am not the target of the autoblock and wish you well in your fight on this guy's name. I sure don't appreciate the language on my talk page/archive. Needs lye soap. I've requested a release by activating the template. Best wishes. WBardwin 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Ixfd64 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "I`M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!". The reason given for I`M THE MOTHERFUCKING JUGGERNAUT BITCH!!!'s block is Your IP address is 207.200.116.200.
  • Actually, that username was originally blocked by Curps. Several days ago, I temporarily unblocked that account in order to deal with the DOS attacks, but I blocked it again afterwards. Unfortunately, it seems that the attacker is trying to cause trouble again. Naconkantari has unblocked the account for now, but we shouldn't really leave these bad-faith accounts open. Let's just hope that the person who is doing these attacks will get bored soon. That way, the account can then be safely blocked. --Ixfd64 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, since it's an AOL/IP Proxy account, there is no way of "safely" blocking the account at all. Each of these accounts rotates through the AOL system, and users are randomly or semi-randomly assigned the numbers. I, for some reason, end up with a lot of numbers in the 200. series and am impacted on autoblocks on those numbers. Admins have a "list", they tell me, of these IP numbers to indicate to admins that these numbers should not be blocked for any longer than 15 minutes at a time. Good luck in your efforts. WBardwin 01:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there's not much that administrators can do beyond temporarily unblocking potentially dangerous accounts and laboriously unblocking the auto-blocked IPs. What we really need are some changes in the MediaWiki software. --Ixfd64 01:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFA thank you!

[edit]

Thank you for supporting my recently successful nomination! :) If I can ever lend a hand, let me know on my talk page, or wherever. Jude (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

[edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ixfd64! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Glen TC (Stollery) 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, VP runs on an Internet Explorer based platform so try this; load Internet Explorer and log into wikipedia before booting VP up Let me know how ya go, look forward to your reply - Glen TC (Stollery) 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still get an error message. :\ --Ixfd64 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does the error message say exactly? - Glen TC (Stollery) 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still get the usual "your log-in request failed" error. --Ixfd64 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts II

[edit]

Hi i see that they reverted the edits that you made on kingdom hearts 2 please stop thank you (Sora45)

Luke Smith64

[edit]

Ixfd64, I think you were far too hasty in indefinitely blocking User:Luke Smith64. I think he means well and isn't vandalising intentionally. Powers 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powers beat me to it. I think he's struggling with how Wikipedia works, and he should be helped, not blocked, as long as he shows willingness to learn. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton

[edit]

Oops, thanks, I think I messed up my revert. Equendil Talk 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (moved from my user page)[reply]

Doh, and I managed to post on your user page instead of the talk page, sorry, I think I need sleep :) Equendil Talk 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no worries. :) --Ixfd64 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum foil

[edit]

Hi. This redirected to Aluminium foil. Why did you delete it? - Richardcavell 06:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.Angela

[edit]

Sure, that's fine, sorry for the inconvenience! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and blocking that IP. -- Scientizzle 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Abramoff

[edit]

I would suggest the block is nothing to do with jack off, but to do with there being a famous Jack Abramoff --pgk(talk) 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from joel8

[edit]

i don't think so pal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel8 (talk • contribs)

.Angela II

[edit]

Hey, Ixfd64. While the blocking policy is a bit nebulous on whether or not we should block non-deliberately confusing usernames, the username policy is pretty clear that confusing usernames (deliberate or otherwise) are a no-no. To wit,

Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:
Confusing, misleading, or troublesome usernames:
*Names that can be confused with other contributors....''

In this case, a block was particularly appropriate to avoid confusion with Angela, a Wikimedia Foundation Board member. Even in the absence of malice, the blocking policy would seem to suggest that blocking confusing usernames is permitted (my emphasis added):

According to our username policy, inflammatory, deliberately confusing, and other inappropriate usernames are not allowed, and in certain circumstances, sysops may block accounts with such usernames.

I read 'other inappropriate usernames' as being a catch-all term to include the rest of the forbidden names in the username policy. It seems to be pretty standard practice to block confusing usernames, and provide those editors with assistance in changing their names upon request.

In this particular case, certain aspects of .Angela's behaviour (like this comment) also suggest a certain lack of good faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's totally understandable. However, I think that some of us jump to conclusions too rapidly. Unless the user was clearly impersonating another user, we shouldn't slap them in the face with indefinite blocks as soon as they wipe their feet on the doormat. Instead, we should welcome them warmly, but explain to them that their usernames might cause confusion. --Ixfd64 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Thanks for the revert! --Fang Aili talk 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TB2 / AVB

[edit]

Essentially the two bots run in a load sharing agreement, we expanded the bots to work in limited cases outside the main namespace, I think what happened is we already had a "restore intro text" option on the introduction page and it got caught up with the other filters and hence it triggered. Thanks for the note! -- Tawker 18:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm curious about why the <span> on the first line, around the coordinates, has id="coordinates" in it. For some reason, its presence makes everything in the span not display for me (which could be why Jareha thought the interpunct was an orphaned bullet; it just seems to be hanging in space). Is there any other way it could inherit whatever CSS it gets through the ID, if any? Or is this intentional? —Zero Gravitas 23:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I was misreading the edit history and thought it was you that added it. Never mind, then! —Zero Gravitas 00:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Sun

[edit]

Thank you. That stupid bot <g> wouldn't leave it alone long enough for me to see that I'd misspelled redirect. CovenantD 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

hey, thanks for the unblock. And I am not a sock puppet for "marmot", whoever that is. Woolymarmot 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TB22

[edit]

Yeah, the interface has changed a little bit, and it broke the autowarn functionality. Since its not screwing up the reverts I'd figure I'd let it run, the auto warn will be back soon -- Tawker 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Ceiling Cat Vandals

[edit]

I just figured I would commend you for beating me to reverting the ceiling cat vandal over the last hour or two. Almost every time I click the revert button, you've beat me to the punch. Keep up the good work! --Alphachimp talk 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TB23

[edit]

Yeah, I've expanded it a little bit. Essentially we've moved into main, help, wikipedia and categories with the odd user talk page if someone requests it -- Tawker 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 3RR

[edit]

Pay attention to the others' behaviour too. It is not about editing - rather about vandalization! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.9.152 (talk • contribs)

Yes I did. Did you? Blanking parts of the article is definitely vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.9.152 (talk • contribs)

Edit War in Neo-Nazism... help!

[edit]

Regarding the article Neo-Nazism, specifically the part about Croatia.... I'm involved in an edit war with an IP address. I reverted some of his edits, as what i saw on the talk page convinced me that the article wasn't NPOV. I've read into the matter somewhat, and I'm rather convinced it isn't. I removed the offending paragraphs, but the IP address added them back. I left notes on his talk page, but He doesn't seem to reply. he mentions on my talk page the Concensus and Community are meaningless, and when I tried to meet him half way, by applying an 'unbalanced' tag but leaving the paragraphs in, he removes it. Any suggestions? I think we'd both appreciate your input! Please reply on my talk page, or on the article in question's talk - thanks! HawkerTyphoon 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Revert

[edit]

Thanks for the save man! :) Mikya 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyances

[edit]

I just shut down his range for a few hours. Oh, and in case I didn't say it before, ... go Bears! --from a fellow Cal grad. Happy editing and thanks for your great anti-vandal work. Antandrus (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Moscow

[edit]

Please note that reverting vandalism to pages such as Moscow is considered a useful contribution and may result in praise, adoration, and the apology of the editor who (I swear Godmode is supposed to not do this) somehow managed to revert your reversion to the last vandalized page. Say that five times fast! Anywho, sorry for messing up! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cake

[edit]

Ok, seriously, telling people how to store a cake is completely retarded. My first edit was a bit of a joke, but I'm going to delete it again, and if you have a reason to revert it, put it on the discussion page. (66.65.7.197 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Ack! I'm under vandal attack, so thanks so much for your kind revert!  :) --Cabiria 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puffkins

[edit]

Thank you for helping me work with the reversions of Tawkerbot. I guess it is activated by reverts like what I had done. Ryulong 05:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! It looks much better now! :) --Ixfd64 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Out of boredom, it's even getting a picture, too. Ryulong 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ goof

[edit]

Sorry about that edit; I got bitten by Bug 5643. SFT | Talk 02:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why reverted?

[edit]

Hello. Just wondering why my addition to... (removed by original author, case of mistaken identity).

--Person 208.252.179.24 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. You are correct. Sorry for bringing that up here. New to wiki so I didn't know which part of the tag was for the editor in the history page. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm removing the question from here and sending to him.
--Person 208.252.179.25 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) --Ixfd64 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]
Giving you this barnstar for your excellent work at WP:AfD. OMEN 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

[edit]

Cheezymadman thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the revert, I try to check my page every so often, and you beat me to editing that vandalism out! Now to find out who did the edit...--Cheezymadman 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page mayhem

[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod template

[edit]

I think you messed up the prod template with your last edits. Please revert as soon as possible (I can't because of the semi-protection) Pascal.Tesson 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, semms to work now. Pascal.Tesson 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a suggestion, but you might want to test edits to a template as important as Prod before implementing them. Your changes today probably confused a number of people who tried to use the template (myself included) since it was broken for quite some time before you fixed it. Thanks! -Big Smooth 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I could have tested my changes by using a test copy of the {{prod}} template. I apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused. --Ixfd64 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Help with DDG-1000 to Zumwalt class destroyer

[edit]

Hey, I was going to post this on the admin notice board, but I figured I'd try here first. DDG-1000 should be moved to Zumwalt class destroyer to conform with other naval articles. No one has opposed the move so far, but we need an admin to complete it, and it seems Wikipedia:Requested moves is backlogged. If you could give us a hand, it would be great! --Falcorian (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

[edit]
Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mangojuicetalk 21:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. --Richard0612 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks! I've indef blocked that account. --Durin 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up that vandalism on my userpage. I would've been able to do it myself but my computer is slowing down on me. Again, I thank you for your help! --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for reverting the blanking of my vandalism page :D. --Domthedude001 17:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks

[edit]

Hi, Ixfd64. Let me add my name to the list of people thanking you for cleaning up vandalism to my user page. It's appreciated. Cheers, Lbbzman 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

The recent Willy on Wheels attack

[edit]
For exceptional work in cleaning up the recent Willy on Wheels attack, and for tireless efforts in cleaning up all forms of vandalism -- Targetter 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ... both for the help and the note. The RC patrollers on here actually make a great team sometimes. That one was particularly delightful.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVandalBot

[edit]

I've given it a command to re-download the admins list and unblocked to try it, I hope that's ok with you -- Tawker 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to manually give it the command to update the adminlist, maybe thats something I should automate :) -- Tawker 01:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We (the RC patrol) still haven't won yet, but...

[edit]
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your ongoing vandalism reverts to the AOL IP micro-vandal (207.200.116.###). Keep it up, and hopefully we don't succumb to him before AIV kicks in. Killfest2 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's been on my nerves for the last couple of nights (Aus time), ever since I joined RC Patrol - I reckon 15% of my 1000-odd edits are reverting his vandalism... Killfest2 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aol vandalbot

[edit]

To save yourself the time, the intentional introduction of typos and mispellings aol vandalbot that's currently operating on 207.200.116.* edits articles 3 times in a row. Unless you block it before it finishes those 3 edits, it WILL edit again. Best save yourself time and block first, then rollback. Else you'll have to rollback twice. This does not, of course, count for the ronnie coleman, ceiling cat, or old-style misspelling bot operating on AOL often on this range. Kevin_b_er 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is wait for it to vandal a page three times then revert it? Killfest2 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. It is greatly appreciated! :) --Ixfd64 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ixfd64: Watch till the 207.200... moves onto the next article, then go back and revert the old article - that should save us some time :P Killfest2 07:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In certain instances, the vandal will edit the same article more than three times during the same session. For example, see the page history of Scott Rogers (footballer). --Ixfd64 07:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching most of what you guys are doing from the CVN on IRC. Hard to tell really what it does. It has the occassional glitch where it edits the same article up to 10 times, but 3 is typical. Did see a 2(but that may have been because it was blocked). Kevin_b_er 08:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CVN? IRC? Excuse my newbieness, but what are they exactly (sorry about doing this to your talk page as well, Ixfd64 :P) Killfest2 08:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're probably talking about the Counter-Vandalism Unit and its IRC channels. --Ixfd64 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Why don't we just wait for the vandal to move on to the next page, then revert his edits to the previous page all at once? Killfest2 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, another administrator just blocked the 207.200.116.* range. I guess that means we can safely take a break now, lol. --Ixfd64 08:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks goodness. Well done - you thoroughly earned that barnstar. Killfest2 08:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argh edit conflicts. Yeah its already been rangeblocked. Also that IRC channel isn't affilated with the counter-vandalism unit. Also the vandal may hop to another range, but its hard to tell how many people/machines are involved in the AOL IP-hopping vandalism. Kevin_b_er 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ixfd64/archive_4&oldid=1106689812"