User talk:JRM/Archive6

Deleting VfD

Sorry, I realise it must have been a real both for the people who had to clean up after it, but seriously, it gave me the first real laugh of the day. It was amusing in it audacity, and in David's response. But I didn't think much about juxtaposition and didn't mean to belittle your (valid) concern. Guettarda 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOL and user blocks: ongoing pattern.

Below is a copy of my note to Inter regarding yet another block on my AOL/IP number (due to vandalism by other users assigned that number). Although the note below indicated you had researched and placed the number on "the list," Inter is not aware of it. Appreciate any followup possible. Thank you. WBardwin 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inter: I believe there was already research done on that IP number and that it was decided by User:JRM to put the number on "the list." Below is a copy of a discussion taken from my User File - User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a followup, if the number was ultimately not listed as indicated here. I will copy this message to JRM as well. Thank you for your help. WBardwin 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Jayjg, Linuxbeak had blocked 207.200.116.132 and WBardwin wrote a message on User talk:Linuxbeak. I noticed it—I'm watching the pages because Linux is doing some heavy vandal-fighting—and unblocked the IP shortly afterwards, say 20:15 UTC. I interfered because I figured Linux might be gone for the weekend, as he hasn't been editing, and WBardwin and maybe others too would have an unconscionable wait. Perhaps you checked for the block after I'd already removed it? I was a little uncertain, since the range wasn't listed on Special:Blockip, but I checked with JRM on IRC and he told me to go ahead and unblock (and then he put the range on the list, too). Thanks for your patience, WBardwin. I bet it is an annoyance! :-( Bishonen | talk 21:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

"The IP mentioned is an AOL cache proxy and should not be blocked for any length of time. I did some probing in the range and it seems to be wholly or mostly comprised of caches, so I added the range to the exclusion list. We can always narrow it down if that should be necessary, but better safe than sorry. JRM · Talk 22:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)"

Responded on your "trophy page". This is a continuing problem that could be fixed (or rather mitigated), but nobody's done it yet. JRM · Talk 17:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and your interest in resolving the problem. It will be difficult to change the practices of "front line" admins as the vandal wars will always be with us. Hopefully, someone will make your software suggestion a priority in the future. It sounds like it would work well. Peace. WBardwin 17:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more time -- "user name or IP address has been blocked by Zoe. The reason given for Aesculapius75's block is: "repeated vandalism of Michael Parodi". IP address is 207.200.116.67." Has Wiki thought about a "admin sandbox" to train people on how to block, including using "the list" of common IPs? Can we get this resolved in any fashion. Thank you. WBardwin 21:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, Zoe was completely innocent. Administrators cannot see IP addresses of registered accounts, for privacy reasons. What happens here is another excellent feature: the autoblocker. If a registered user who edits under an AOL proxy is blocked, the associating IP address will be autoblocked for 24 hours on the next edit. That could either be the original vandal or an innocent bystander. The autoblocker knows no remorse, or restricted IP lists. This cannot be solved without updating the software. JRM · Talk 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated issue -- I just tried to edit and was accepted. Thank you, if you took some action to release me. Appreciate your help. WBardwin 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I did unblock the addresses. Sorry for not revealing that little unimportant tidbit of information. :-) JRM · Talk 22:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe's block just hit me again. If you are still online, how about another release. Appreciate the favor. WBardwin 04:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JRM --

Another block ---- do the admins want me to work here? WBardwin 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Rhobite.

The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DotSix". The reason given for DotSix's block is: "vandalism. glad to see you got yourself an account though.".

Your IP address is 207.200.116.199. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

I'm as frustrated by this as you are, but the administrators simply can't help it. We can petition the developers for changes in the software, but this is by no means a fast process. You are, of course, unblocked. JRM · Talk 17:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- appreciate your emotional support and attention, even if we can't do anything else. WBardwin 18:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back again -- are you by chance still hanging around? Blocked again -- new record, two different blocks in one day. Thanks. WBardwin 04:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make that three -- I don't think I'm going to get to Martha Washington at all today. If you have the opportunity, please release this block as well. Thanks. WBardwin 06:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Dmcdevit. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Donald R. Alford". The reason given for Donald R. Alford's block is: "dotsix sockpuppet, vandalism". Your IP address is 207.200.116.74.

Hi -- me again. Can you please release the block? Thank you. WBardwin 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Your user name or IP address has been blocked by JRM. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mickey670". The reason given for Mickey670's block is: "Repeated vandalism despite warnings". Your IP address is 207.200.116.130.[reply]

Thanks. Since you are the grand assigner of titles, perhaps you could come up with one for me? Some kind of reward for this persistance in the face of "falling" blocks should be in order. Bless you! WBardwin 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh----my very first barnstar!! :-) Thank you so very much. WBardwin 01:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 25th -- different IP address this time. Are you available for another release? Thanks. WBardwin 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Ryan Delaney. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mickey663". The reason given for Mickey663's block is: "Sock puppet". Your IP address is 64.12.116.7.

Thanks again. I love all the attention -- I'll have to come up with something more complicated for you two to compete over. Appreciate you. WBardwin 00:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocks

I'll be one of those ignorant types. When I became an admin, I noticed a severe lack of instruction in most corners of Wikipedia. So I thank you for that notice on AN. I'm not very technically adept, so I the IP stuff kind of baffles me. A few days ago I blocked User:69.111.161.69 for 48 hours for some rather bad personal attacks and racism. A few questions: What is the proper procedure when doing such a block? Was this too long a block? Should I have checked the IP number for something? Actually, how do I glean any information from the number? Er, stuff like that. I just want to know generally how I should go about it. Thanks again. --Dmcdevit·t 20:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a real lack of documentation out there, and administrators are expected to pick up this thing by magic...

Here's a very brief checklist that usually works well.

Check if the IP address is in a proxy range. In this case, that's easy enough: 69.111.161.69 is nowhere near any range on Special:Blockip. No ranges start with 69. To really know whether an IP address is in a range you'll have to read up a bit on their format, but for most of the ranges listed, looking at the bold numbers to see if they match is enough.
Then use a WHOIS service to find out where the IP is coming from. Direct link: ARIN WHOIS. This yields:

Pac Bell Internet Services PBI-NET-0803 (NET-69-104-0-0-1) 
                                 69.104.0.0 - 69.111.255.255
PPPoX Pool - Rback11 PLTN13 SBC06911116000022040322224055 (NET-69-111-160-0-1) 
                                 69.111.160.0 - 69.111.163.255

Ignore all the funky numbers—this is an IP address operated by Pacific Bell for PPP. Checking out their website, it appears to be a dialup address, as that is all they have.
Google is your friend in obtaining this sort of information—a WHOIS record is often cryptic. Googling on PLTN, I find this! Small world, eh? You can also try a traceroute—this will often give you a clue where, approximately, the address is in cyberspace, and often where it is in meatspace as well. Look for certain keywords in the hostname, like "proxy", "dialup", "pool". They often reveal directly what the address is assigned for. In this case, we don't see much.

Summing up, we've found it's a dialup address. What does that mean? Two things:

It's unlikely someone else who edits Wikipedia will be assigned the exact same dialup address in 48 hours. Dialup addresses are only handed out when users call in to their ISPs.
Unfortunately, it's also unlikely the person who made those edits will be assigned the same dialup address the next time they login. The block you handed out probably didn't stop the person from accessing Wikipedia for 48 hours—but it did make them go away, which was enough.

Now, do you really need to go through all this trouble every time you want to block an IP address? No. Blocking IP addresses is generally safe. Collateral damage, if it occurs at all, is very mild. A few basic guidelines are enough:

First, ensure that you really need to block. Revert and warn the user first: {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test2a}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, {{test5}} (not all of them apply all the time, and you're free to come up with more specific warnings). Many vandals just do one stupid thing and leave. Blocking them is a waste of time. Most others stop after being informed they will be blocked if they do whatever they did again. Of course, some folks just won't listen—and others are deliberately pissing people off to see how quickly they get blocked. This is where personal judgement comes in.
Check if the IP address is in a proxy range. If it is, and you've decided that you really need to block to put an end to it, make the block short. Try 15 minutes, and after those 15 minutes check if the vandal is still at it. If they are, you can reblock, possibly for a slightly longer time. But always aim for the shortest block time possible.
If it isn't, then you can block for up to 24 hours. For non-proxy IPs, you can usually safely assume that no innocents will get hurt by such a block.
Longer blocks are usually not effective, because the original vandal will be long gone, or they will have returned under another address. If you notice the same guy keeps coming back making the same edits from the same address over and over again, longer blocks make sense. In general, try to estimate how long someone has kept a single address—the longer this is, the safer long blocks are.
You'll often see an IP address with unrelated "bouts" of vandalism over different periods. These are usually dialup addresses or school computers that have seen multiple vandals pass by. This typically does not warrant handing out longer blocks; just block, rinse, repeat.

Whew! This is not an exhaustive guide, but it covers a lot of ground. In general, don't worry too much about it—blocking ISP proxies is Bad, but when you've established it's not an ISP proxy, it's usually safe. JRM · Talk 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains a lot. Actually, I've stored it in a personal subpage so I can refer back to it for eternity, and treasure and cherish it! One more question, that'll probably sound stupid. It's my understanding that when username (not an IP) is blocked, their most recent IP is also blocked. If this is true, why doesn't the same caution hold with all blocks, not just IPs, since all will block an IP. If, let's say, I block a user indefinitely, isn't their IP autoblocked indefinitely as well, bringing up all these same problems. I have a feeling my whole premise is wrong. Anyway, thanks for your valuable help. Dmcdevit·t 09:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No, your premise is pretty accurate. The autoblocker will kick in and block an IP address associated with a blocked account, but it will only block the address for a period of 24 hours, and (I assume, this part I haven't checked) it will only do so once. So the IP is free to come back and edit after that period even if the account remains blocked indefinitely, and you can also manually undo a block placed by the autoblocker.

The autoblocker does mean collateral damage is a real possibility if a user editing under AOL proxies is blocked. If they return when logged out the IP address of the proxy can get blocked, which is, as is hopefully established by now, Bad. This is why the autoblocker is a mixed blessing at best: it ensures users can't just log out and continue, but the automated blocks can do more damage than the blocking administrator intended.

Thanks for the trashcan! So much more inspiring than that flower. :-) JRM · Talk 13:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought it was more original. And I thought it was more appropriate to the subject to blocks and vandals than a flower. Anyhow, that really clears up a lot. I didn't realize the autoblocker was only 24 hours, I had assumed it it took on the same sentence as the original block (so that's WoW's secret). By the way, having not had much communication with you before now, I should probably tell you that whenenver I see your name I pronounce it in my mind as "germ," that's how you meant it, right? :) Erm, anyway, thanks again. --Dmcdevit·t 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* It seems everyone eventually settles on the "germ" pronunciation. I don't care. I like those initials. I'm not going to sign everything with Joost R. Meerten 22:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[1] You get the same treatment as Ed, for that... [[smoddy]] 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I'll get praised, reviled, awarded barnstars, RfC'ed, taken to arbitration, threatened with blocks and blocked for one minute?! Ouch. :-D JRM · Talk 22:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your suggestions and help

Hi! I caught my mistake and moved notices from the article talks to the user talks. I did indeed post the notice on Village Pump and would appreciate your input Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline and your letting anyone else know who's likely to be interested. Thanks -- Sitearm | Talk 18:55, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Joost, my fellow "wiki asshole"! Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord~s

ok, how about just a few in the title of articles then? then everyone would see and not see them?Gavin the Chosen 20:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ill keep them out of the main body texts, and keep them to blank space and subesads.Gavin the Chosen 20:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Introduction vandalized

this page has been vandalized:

Wikipedia:Introduction

I don't know enough to confidently fix it. -- Sitearm | Talk 03:55, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Never mind: RasputinAXP fixed it. -- Sitearm | Talk 03:58, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

What should I do?

You said that voiceofall.jpg was in copyright violation. I want to use the image so what do I do? Should it just be the link http://www.rkpost.net/magic/magic.htm or http://www.rkpost.net/magic/voiceofall.jpg with no visable picture(unless you open it). Thanks.Voice of All(MTG) 00:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just have a link now. But I am confused; how do sites like www.findmagiccards.com have thousands of pictures of cards withought copyright issues(I also noticed that they don't let you copy and past,....but I can still press print screen, he..he...). Anyway, is this something unique to open source stuff like wikipedia? What if I upload the image and have it say:

This is a screenshot of a copyrighted website, video game graphic, computer program graphic, television broadcast, or film. It is believed that screenshots may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. See Copyrights.

This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law.

Voice of All(MTG) 01:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm continuing the discussion on this page, now, since it's getting interesting. The reason other sites get away with copyright violations (and they are getting away) is simple: nobody goes after them. As long as sites aren't trying to make money off of the pictures or try to discredit the artists, they are likely fine with it.

Wikipedia can't work that way, for two reasons: first, we are much more vulnerable to copyright damage claims if we don't act on them, since we're very big, very easy to target, and we have no money to spare on lawsuits. Second, and more importantly, the GFDL applies to images as well as it does to article text. That means that by putting an image on Wikipedia, we are giving all our readers permission to copy and alter the image, and they must give other people the same rights, in perpetuity. We can't give away rights we don't have, and those rights rest with the copyright holder. We would be much worse than sites that just copy pictures if we allowed something like that.

So yes, it is mostly our unique nature that makes it important to remove copyvios. We can't expect to get away with things others routinely do, because it would come back to hurt us. And we're quite vulnerable.

Now, about fair use images. Those shouldn't really be on Wikipedia. We allow them because they're typically of things we're almost never going to get licensed images of, but they are not universal (it might simply be copyrighted with no special exemptions granted by the law in other countries). Fair use does not give you the same rights as the GFDL, so we're really walking the edge when we're including an image because it's fair use. It clearly doesn't apply in this case, either: a complete, full-resolution copy of artwork is not fair use. In fact, no version of that image would be fair use if it was placed on your user page, because this is not educational. See fair use for the relatively narrow criteria an image must meet to qualify. JRM · Talk 01:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a good link(Fair Use). The GFDL page is a bit confusing though.Voice of All(MTG) 01:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'd go into more detail, but it's really late over here and I have to go to bed. :-) Please feel free to ask around on the help desk if anything is still unclear. JRM · Talk 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance in handling disruptive behavior.

I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.

Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk · contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.

Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.

I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*, especially (212.138.47.13/14/15/16/17/18/21).

I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Oats and Hay

You DOUBT that the Day of Oats and Hay needs a separate page?! Heathen! Blasphemer! ;-)

Actually, what drew me to that article was something my grandfather said a long time ago. He said to me "Always remember that if your faith can't take criticism, if you find yourself growing angry, then the problem isn't the person talking to you, it's you. You need to examine why you believe." I've met a lot of people online since then who think the IPU is heretical - particularly when the Holy Horn is used to make an imitation of the Christian Cross. And I remember what my grandfather said, and just shake my head. It doesn't offend me, it challenges me, and makes me think about why I believe. Well, as such, I thought the article could use a bit of work, expanding on the known (and more-or-less commonly agreed) bits of the IPU dogma. Xaa 03:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion is fine, but (indeed, without investigating if this is really so, my apologies) it's unlikely enough of this Day of Oats and Hay is inven... known to warrant an article separate from the main article on the Unicorn (mhhnbs). If I'm wrong, by all means write the article and link it, but consider expanding the main article instead and splitting off a new article only when it becomes necessary. Otherwise it looks like one of those redlinks that will always remain red, or "expand" into an eternal single sentence, or just draws anons who will type random nonsense and leave. My evaluation is of a purely technical nature and not meant to be a value judgement. :-) JRM · Talk 11:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! You don't understand. The above wasn't argument or complaint - it was humor, and conversation. You're right - the Day of Oats and Hay doesn't deserve it's own page. =) Xaa 17:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Taking professional attitude too far. So... how's the weather over on your end? :-D (No, no, don't answer that... before you know it my talk page will look like this one, and I wouldn't want that.) JRM · Talk 17:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The day of Oats and Hay should most definitely have a page of its own. The notion af an ultimate divine purpose that is not negative (cast down the arch enemy and all his followers to the nethermost pits) but is instead positive and uplifting (make friends with the POoD that all may live happily together ever after) is so new and revolutionary that AFAIK no other religion have a goal equally worthy of a good and loving divinity. The closest I guess would be buddism with the oneness of nirvana.

Forest?

So you're saying that those discussions were a waste of time, and they should continue anyway? That doesn't make sense. R adiant _>|< 13:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Continued on your talk page. JRM · Talk 13:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curds of holy cows

Thanks for the reversion, I guess. Is this cheese supposed to be the cheeselover? Oddness, and exactly what I'm not getting involved with these days, lest I loose my wrath. (Also, since I am a Christian (although one that fundamentalists call "fake Christian scum"), you know that was a spam message. As if I were going to get upset at an accusation that someone has religious faith.) Geogre 17:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CheeseDreams had a fallout with Eequor... A very hostile and unproductive fallout. In fact, you might say CheeseDreams went completely nuts. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2 has the conclusion of this sad story. JRM · Talk 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still dreaming

Heya. Even after you blocked her earlier, CheeseDreams has come back yet again, as User:Menses. She's left another of those weird sockpuppet statements on my talk page (most bizarre accusation ever... I don't even know Rienzo). [2] ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So she finally succeeded in addressing the person it was addressed to? No mass-spamming of other talk pages? Good. :-) JRM · Talk 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal User:Mickey670

Mickey670 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored our warnings and has continued to vandalize pages. If you could block him, that would be great. Thanks -- MicahMN | Talk 01:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Actually:[reply]

03:57, 21 August 2005 Thunderbrand blocked "User:Mickey670" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism; was warned)
03:57, 21 August 2005 Changlc blocked "User:Mickey670" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated vandalism of articles and AIV page)
03:57, 21 August 2005 JRM blocked "User:Mickey670" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated vandalism despite warnings)

We never sleep. :-) JRM · Talk 02:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could you check?

There is my reports of blind reverting by Jtdirl etc, and violatioon of 3rr, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, today. Do people usually accept here such pretexts as now were presented in Jtdirl's defense? 217.140.193.123 12:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Hi, could you please protect this page? It's already been protected once, but the edit war is continuing. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Thanks for the heads up about the anon signing my name on the VfD closure. This first closure was not me, but I have taken it as a request that I close the VfD. The VfD has been closed with a No consensus default to keep (the anon claimed a keep consensus). --Allen3 ^talk 02:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

SLMM - Link removal

Hi,

In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SLMM, user "Ulflarsen" removed a description and URL that was levelling alegations against Norwegian ex-forces provding training to the LTTE.

"Norwegian ex-special forces have allegedly trained LTTE members to launch underwater demolition attacks against the Sri Lankan Navy [3] "

I am of the view that this news was reported in many international news sources, and the original contribution had qutoed a URL reference, it shouldn't have been removed.

AOL Block/August 24th

If you happen to be on, I'd appreciate another release. Best Wishes. WBardwin 16:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Olivier. The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "WikiNazi". The reason given for WikiNazi's block is: ""i am WikiNazi. i want you all to join me in vandalizing wikipedia"". Your IP address is 205.188.117.69.

The entire gamut of addresses the unfortunately named "WikiNazi" polluted has been unblocked. JRM · Talk 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JRM and Bishonen -- Thank you, valiant warriors. Good luck against the threat of the Hun! WBardwin 17:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 11:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]