User talk:Pgk/Archive3

Help PGK

I just got the answer you wrote after I wrote this! Thanks.

This is Pjpalm1964 and you just moved my page (looks like I put it in the wrong place), and removed my question and link to the helpme template.

I am learning as fast as I can, but would like some help on how to collaborate using Talk pages, how to email, and how to join the Automotive project. (Is this the proper way to talk to you?)

Cheers, Paul

Thanks pgk

This is outsider2810! Thanks for unblocing me, you are the greatest :)

Requesting a Block

Please take a look at Willis Stephens and 216.45.156.46, an ipvandal who continues to blank the page against the tireless efforts of several editors from very different points of view. MrPrada 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Regarding blocked IP 206.213.157.4, Branham High School, I do not believe that the district has taken action against this individual. Regardless, I am almost confident that he has already completed high school at Branham, so no worries.

Please be aware

Please be advised that user Asams10 keeps deleting relevant links in the AK-47 article. He has been blocked numerous times for repeatedly, unilaterally changing what he calls his "pet articles." See .380 ACP.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AK-47

This annonomous user tells me to "Eat Shit" and you want me blocked? Another admin, Land, is handling this.--Asams10 04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you.--Asams10 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say...

Thanks for unblocking me!

User:P.G.K

You may want to block this one. DG X 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked it. :-) --Nlu (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say OK and WP:AGF, but I guess Nlu took care of that. :) DG X 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RV on unblock request

I reverted it because the page had been blanked in the edit immediately before it. I wasn't sure if the user had been unblocked or not, and wasn't sure if that was a warning or not, so I reverted on the side of error. Sorry for the inconvenience. KC9CQJ 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:wolf guevara

is it possible that you could reconsider over this user unblocking request? his block time is now nearly 9 days. He, also, is clearly sorry for any disruption he has caused. And after all he only made ONE offensive comment and even that was pretty mild. Look into it at least Cicero Dog 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know what it looks like and i understand your concern but i can assure you he is not a sockpuppet. If he was a sockpuppet would he want so desperately to be unblocked? e'd have his other account(s). Anyway .....thanks for your time Cicero Dog 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block of User:Jesus On Wheels

I noticed that you indefinitely blocked User:Jesus On Wheels as an inappropriate username. This person has been making legitimate edits to Wikipedia. Please see his block log entries and note that he was previously unblocked on appeal of being a legitimate user. Further, see his userpage which explains his use of the name. Also, this account has performed no page moves, and doesn't fit the profile of WoW. Pending any further evidence that this contributor is actually a vandal, I think it would be best if you unblocked his account and allow him to continue to contribute. --Durin 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the block. More appropriate would have been an attempt to get him to change his username rather than slapping him with an indefinite block, which had been done before and cleared on appeal. If I were this user, I'd feel pretty smashed into the dirt over this. Right now, he can't even make the username change request because he's been banned. There's no reason to believe this person is WoW or a vandal other than his username. His lack of contributions should not be used as a means of demonizing him. Please unblock him, at least to give him a chance to change his username. --Durin 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was little skeptical about this user staying on Wikipedia. I know he's been here for a little while, but the facts about him don't add up like you said. Disappearing for a few months and then excepting an RFA? Strange. I also find it strange that someone, User:Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) even nominated him. I think I missed something though, was he blocked per Wikipedia:Username for having "Jesus" in his name or blocked for having "on Wheels" in his name? (because you mentioned "Mohammed on Wheels") Anyways, IMHO, it looks like a failed atttempt at trying to get someone "on Wheels" adminship (which could have had disastrous effects). I wouldn't be surprised if the CheckUser had come back and proved it was the editor who nominated him for adminship. (It would explain how he knew to come back to accept the nomination). Oh well, best just leave him blocked. DG X 16:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought Pgk, thanks for clarifying. DG X 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume bad faith, yes I agree. Assume, for a moment, that this is a well intentioned user. Put yourself in his shoes. You're using a pseudonym you've used in other places on the Internet. You're an infrequent contributor here, but you do occasionally make additions. You've been banned before, appealed and had it cleared. You were told by another admin that there would be efforts made to help prevent this from happening again. Then, without any effort at communication you are indefinitely banned by another admin. Wouldn't you feel pretty smashed by this system? Where is the harm in having this user unblocked long enough for them to make an attempt at having their username changed? If, by some stretch of the imagination, he turns out to be WoW or a clone (even though it doesn't fit the profile), he'll be stopped soon enough once he starts making mass page moves. It isn't this user's fault that someone else decided to use the "... on wheels" moniker. Assume some good faith, and let's encourage this guy rather than slam him down. --Durin 16:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I never said "lets keep him blocked long enough to have him not change his name", I said its best to have this account blocked (or thats what I intended). I would let him be unblocked if he wanted to change his name, but he doesn't. From: User:Jesus On Wheels's user page:

I realise that my name will most likely lead to more bans but I have been using it for many years and many people identify me with it. Please dont leave me messages to change my name.

Hence, he doesn't want to change his name. If he wants it changed then I say unblock, but it doesn't look he wants too. DG X 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer (of not wheel warring with me if I unblock), I've decided to take it, and I'm prepared to face the consequences of my actions if it blows up in my face. I'd better go get that face shield. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but judging by his comments on his user page and talk page, it doesn't seem likely that we would be able to convince him to change it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nonetheless, I decided to chime in and make a few suggestions (such as "JOW" or "J.O.W."). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I it seems that more users have been telling Jesus On Wheels (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) to change it despite the notice Please dont leave me messages to change my name. Myrtone :-o

revert of my userpage

Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 14:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Tijuana Brass^E@ 06:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myrtone86

Hmm... Something funny just struck me. Looks at User:Myrtone86's signature which says :

Myrtone@Jesus On Wheels.com.au

Hmm.. interesting... DG X 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't it interesting now that coincidentally that Myrtone has put up a request for a change in username? DG X 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former is becuase in my preferences (with raw sgniture ticked) I have "Myr'''tone'''@{{PAGENAME}}.com.au," which produces Myrtone@Pgk.com.au.

Userpage revert

Thank you! --Doug (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Gracias!

For reverting the vandalism done to my userpage, have a cookie. ;)Rosa

auto-blocks on inappropriate usernames

I think that most of the usernames you mentioned on my talk page were registered by the North Carolina vandal. I understand that unblocking IPs used by vandals is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, this vandal is an AOL user, and keeping the IPs blocked will no doubt cause inconvenience to many legitimate editors. --Ixfd64 22:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About blocking me

YOU: Should have expired by now, but saying you didn't know about a rule when you've a warning about it just above from 30 minutes before the block seems somewhat inconsistent.

Yes but I saw that warnig when I've been blocked. So it was to late. --Stevanb 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About blocking me

I was busy making some changes, so I didn't notice that baner. Anyway it is ok now I'm unlocked. --Stevanb 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 50 Cent Songs And Appearances

Too much is in that article 50 Cent. I moved the singles to it's own article. Thanks for your cooperation. LILVOKA 22:33 25 May 2006 (UTC)

unblocked

yes it worked! now lets just hope that i will not get blocked again! thank you Touth 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandal Thewolfstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using IP 24.161.21.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice if...

Wikipedia required users to register in order to contribute, and that when registering that user must give a unique e-mail address. That way, when users vandalize, they have only one "self", and when they get blocked, THEY GET BLOCKED. What currently happens is that people create accounts SOLELY for vandalism, and do their business and log out of those accounts before an autoblock is placed. Then they create five more accounts doing the same until they've maxed out of accounts for the 24-hour period. Or instead they take their laptop, jump in their car, and drive around to each wi-fi "hotspot" to vandalize until being blocked, then move on to the next hotspot. This method I've explained would help to seriously hinder vandalism. --NicAgent 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for unblocking me. I didn't know about the {{helpme}} feature, so I thought it would help me get unblocked faster. Wrong assumption; sorry about that. Anyway, the person who tried to create an account name like mine WON'T be using my IP address anytime soon, so no worries. I've also password-protected my IP just in case. Anyway, thanks again!

Thistheman 14:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at 69.74.63.194

I replied to your comment at User talk:69.74.63.194. --AySz88 ^-^ 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Motorox

Commenting on Motorox's unblock request, you have said: "you have a string of other sockpuppets". I am interested: What are User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate's other sockpuppets? (I have added the sockpuppet notice on Motorox's page myself, and I am not aware of any others.) - Mike Rosoft

Thank you for your quick answer; I have marked the rest of his accounts as sockpuppets so that they can be blocked in case of more disruptive behavior by the user. (If my action wasn't appropriate, I apologize.) - Mike Rosoft 10:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for unblocking me.

Re: Paul Otis

I' sorry, I didn't know there was Notability requirments. You where right. QwssE 04:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me

I hope that does not happen again. DeleteThis 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I appreciate the attention. Best.....WBardwin 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Permission to publish (whether in print or on the Internet) is always subject to withdrawal regardless of such conditional statements that pretend to have the power to nullify the intent of the law. Copyright permission is always subject to denial. This is the whole point behind the DMCA takedown. You need to read the DMCA signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998 which amends title 17 of the US Code to extend its reach to copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users still requires publishers to comply with any change in owner instructions and will. You need to read the Wikipedia article Digital Millennium Copyright Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pce3@ij.net (talk • contribs)

i'm on aol & always getting blocked so it says do this . . .

message I'm currently getting says this -

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Royboycrashfan for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MPenso". The reason given for MPenso's block is: "vandalism".

Your IP address is 152.163.100.130. CyntWorkStuff 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CyntWorkStuff 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.13.187.217

Ok, I did not know you were an administrator, because I looked at your user page, and it did not show that you were, so I assumed you were not. Also, are bans put on a permanant record type of list?

block

Thanks for your help! --Marysunshine 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling user creation logs, and...

Came across this one... (Edit: and this one) RadioKirk talk to me 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching that pgk. ;-) DG X 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my attack

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια*14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for helping deal with the vandalism to my Talk page. Al 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to unblock my talk page

and I will be reporting you for your abusive behaviorLutherian 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again

Thank you again for unblocking me. It's very frustrating to suddenly find a block when you know you've done nothing to even possibly warrant it.--T smitts 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I believe I have come across a new sockpuppet of Bugman94:

Mr. Cookie

A quick message he left and then deleted on my talk page, which can be found in my talk page history here clearly suggests that this is the same user.

No problem. Bubbles2430 appears to be another sockpuppet. I'll keep an eye on both accounts though. Thanks for responding. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electrified mocha chinchilla (talk • contribs) . 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to this ASAP. Mr. Cookie just won't stop. He's not vandalizing; instead, he wants a mediation because I'm "mean" to him, and wants his user page temporarily protected. Your input? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EMC (talk • contribs) . 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have never even known about his new user name if it weren't for the fact that he vandalized my talk page, and then blanked his post. So essentially, he's the one who should steer away from me. --EMC 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What bot do you use?

Whatever it is, it can detect possible impostor names really well! Can you tell me what it is (or wikilink to it?) You and your bot are doing a very good job! Keep it up! =) --Shultz IV 22:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touth

Touth is once again blocked. I think it's his IP. Do you want to look into unblocking him? I'm not an admin though. I've warned him about using caps again. ForestH2

i am now unblocked for god knows how long

thanks for unblocking me and i will let you know how i get on.

by Touth 23:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Alright thanks, it worked that time. I'm still kinda angry I was blocked since the 3RR report was obviously bogus, I never even reverted 3 times in one day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

touth

hello again pgk! i am just letting you know that i am still doing ok. i have not been blocked yet which is a good thing! how about you?Touth 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Intro I made for the Azari article

The intro, I made keeps on being delted or removed. It was the result of a long fought compromise and sweet braking work. It is being removed and the eidtos pretend they have no idea what I am talking about. 72.57.230.179

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe's new block

Dear Pgk,

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been blocked by User:HOTR in clear violation of the blocking policy.[1]. He’s posted an unblock template on his talk page, where a discussion is taking place. Fresh from the false ANI report against him and resulting block (for six reverts in six days!), it's starting to look like persecution. I would deeply appreciate your willingness to take a look at this.Timothy Usher 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Thanks for your prompt response!Timothy Usher 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I've seen a lot of that particular style of vandalism lately. I smell sockpuppets... M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the explaination of why I was blocked. Josen 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatCheng

Yes, I had already rejected two appeals with explanation above yours, but left the sign there for another admin to have a look.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your mail please, sir.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RR. Why then was the grounds refused based on 3RR?--PatCheng 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page vandalism

Pgk, please, please sprotect my user talk page again. That was the only peace I've ever known on WP. I've never once gotten a legitimate message from an anon, and now another one - judging from his contributions, clearly another user (though I like how he went to the sandbox first to pretend otherwise) - has been changing existing section headers. Not quite as bad as the last round, but I don't wish to have to stay up all night fighting off anons, or reporting them to ANI (or bothering you) - sprotect is easier for all involved.Timothy Usher 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Thanks.Timothy Usher 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk, I believe it was better to first ask Timothy Usher to explain his logic rather than making accusations against me. According to what policy anon-users can be stopped from edittinga page? Why the issue of changing the title of a section into a neutral one, is this much bothering to Timothy? Good question, isn't it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.26.157 (talk • contribs)

Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia (something similar to "human rights", etc) 70.132.26.157 08:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please...you revert-war, follows users to their talk pages, opines on how wp owns user talk pages (as if that meant that sockpuppet anons own other editor's user talk pages), following up on s-protecting admins, etc. All this after just joining wikipedia!

Why don't you just say what you want to say under your regular username, without altering other people's comments? Is that so hard?

Oh, and when you visited the sandbox...was that to make it look like you were a new user, or to make sure your proxy wasn't showing your real address?Timothy Usher 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...on your “first” edit, to the sandbox, you included your four-tilde signature[2]

, but after that [3], you left it out until just now. I think that answers my previous question.Timothy Usher 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk, The Timothy's argument is simply irrelavant. I don't have to make a username in order to edit. Pgk, please see into the issue we were discussing. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior? Pgk, is there anything like "anon-editor rights" in wikipedia. Is it okay for Timothy to falsely accuse me of vandalism just because he has a username? Pgk, I would like to add that Timothy's above argument shows his chain of thought (and that was mostly developed only after he finally decided to waste his time a bit and explain his view). He evaluates personality of editors rather than their edits. Is this view supportable? 70.132.26.157 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Is there anybody here? Pgk believes I am a vandal and has disabled me from editing Timothy Usher's talk page. Seems nobody is at home. Okay bye. 70.132.26.157 08:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk, the anon who vandalized my user page last night (thanks again for sprotect) is now editting from a number of related IP addresses:

User:70.132.26.157, User:70.132.40.180, User:70.132.42.38, User:70.132.58.150, User:70.132.66.114

and is trolling with surreal personal attacks accusing both you and myself of anti-Semitism against anon users (???) and of vandalism[4], [5], [6].

At first I thought it kind of funny, but it’s gotten annoying enough to gather the diffs. What do you think?Timothy Usher 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's got another one, User:69.235.134.113 - first edit, a revert.Timothy Usher 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timothy Usher, nobody is here. Were there anybody here reading my comments, I would have got some reply. Secondly, you were the one who first accused me of vandalism. Now, you are referring to me as a troll. Thirdly, I am not User:69.235.134.113. A new false accusation! Mr. Timothy Usher, an advice that will both help you in wikipedia and in the real life: unless you bring a falsification test along with your claims, they will not have ANY value. 70.231.238.22 06:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued trolling and personal attacks from anon

Pgk, this user continues to troll. Latest post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild [7].

Timothy Usher himself has defined a meatpuppet as: "The definition here is too narrow. It's not a dictionary, and doesn't cover the full range of its uses. If I ask you, hey, Netscott, please come revert on Game Theory, and you do, you're acting as my meatpuppet - a real person who in context may as well be a sockpuppet." 70.231.233.118 05:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him why he refers to me as a meatpuppet.

Also on the talk page of blocked user User talk:Amibidhrohi to support his vandalism of my user page and personal attacks.Timothy Usher 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Usher doesn't want to accept that he does not assume good faith. 70.231.233.118 05:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's wikistalking me, leaving off-topic messages most everywhere I've posted[8]. I suppose it's not negatively affecting me per se, as any reasonable observer will dismiss (and has dismissed) him as a troll, but it's disrupting Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 06:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped you'd both calm down within a couple of days and we'd be able to move this forward, clearly that hasn't happened. From what I can see what is happening here is totally disproportionate to the underlying issue. Timothy Usher should be willing to listen to reasonable criticism, but the rub here is what is reasonable criticism. Altering the contents of someones talk page is in my view unreasonable, hounding them around wikipedia is well beyond unreasonable. If you have a fair comment to make, make it, quit attacking the person describe the issue. If you want to outline the issue here (my talk) by all means do so, but do you may find mediation a better way to move this forward. --pgk^(talk) 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation? With a wikistalking multi-IP anon troll? Who is anyhow almost certainly the sockpuppet of a banned user (a la Vkasdg)? He's not talked about anything except self-recursive critiques about how his own vandalism and trollng have been handled. There are no useful contributions in the histories of any of these IPs, and there really is nothing to discuss.Timothy Usher 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your idea is? Block all IP editors to stop it? Its fairly apparent that it is another editor editing anonymously which is in itself part of the problem. If this can't be moved forward constructively then I'm not sure why you feel you constantly need to fill my page with messages about this, when a new one turn up report it to WP:PAIN and let an admin who is currently about deal with it. --pgk^(talk) 06:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to block the range as per whois - but if that's not acceptable, then there's no point taking it any further, as there's no remedy on any noticeboard that wouldn't meet the same objections. Alternately block the IP's as they arise. But, you know, whatever. It's only personal attacks and trolling.Timothy Usher 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A range block for the number of IPs here would cover 10s of thousands of addresses which would mean potential for a lot of collateral damage, as such any such block would normally only be for a very short range of time. Single blocks are OK, but you'd need to report those to WP:PAIN, since I'm generally not here when this issue is going on (off to work in a minute), reporting it to me is pretty pointless. But blocking is a pretty blunt instrument if you can resolve a dispute sufficiently to stop the trolling/attacks/harassment (not necessarily reach agreement) it tends to be a better long term solution. --pgk^(talk) 07:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pgk for your comment. I have a couple of questions:

1. Why changing the title of "Re: Amibidhrohi's spam solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry" to "Amibidhrohi" is vandalism (and an illegitimate edit according to Timothy Usher)? Can you please show me the policy on vandalism and on illegitimate edits?

It is his talk page, don't alter comments on other peoples talk pages, at best it is impolite at worst it is vandalism, different people consider it differently, once he had responded indicating he believed it was vandalism why push the issue and be a dick. If you think the discussion is unfair/baseless/whatever add your own *constructive* comment to that discussion.

1. Does his talk page belong to him? Can I make a userpage and make personal attacks to others?

2. Why did you remove my comments from your talk page? (at best it is impolite, at worst it is vandalism) and why it was *constructive* (according to your definition of course)?

If a user is making personal attacks then there are constructive ways to deal with it (see dispute resolution). I removed some of your comments not all, because you were also changing comments here. --pgk^(talk) 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1'. Could you please answer my question #1.

2'. 1": "I removed some of your comments not all, because you were also changing comments here." is in contradiction with "someone else's behaviour never is and never will be an excuse for your own" please explain more.

2'. 2" You restored all my changes here but removed some of my comments. I expect them to be restored.

I have answered your question 1, personal attacks are not permitted and you should use dispute resolution, see WP:DR or report on WP:PAIN. There is a difference between explaining an acceptable course of action made as a reaction to anothers actions, and try to excuse an unacceptable course of action on the basis of someone elses unacceptable actions. Expect all you like.

If personal attacks are not permitted, why did you refer to me as a vandal? I was removing personal attacks made by Timothy Usher (i.e. the title of the section).

IF removing personal attacks by others is not vandalism, I haven't done anything wrong. IF it is, we can safely state your removal of my comments was vandalism. How do you solve this paradox?

2. Why do you guys treat me mercilessly? What have I done? Why do you guys ignore me? Just because I don't have a username? I asked you a question on your talk page but you didn’t answer. Honestly, had Timothy Usher asked that question, were you still ignoring him?

I ignored both of you in the vague hope you might actually calm down and deal with this like adults, guess I was mistaken.

But you ignored the comments only after accusing me of vandalism (see your reason for protecting Timothy Usher's talk page). You can not deny that you were involved. At best your behavior was impolite, at worst ...

I protected the page on a request, I reviewed an edit where you were modifying someone elses talk page and contiuing to do sodespite the fact that they clearly didn't want you to. I would classify that as vandalism yes. --pgk^(talk) 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. So, you agree that you had looked into the situation (maybe not closely) and made a judgment. So, you were already involved in the case and were no longer a neutral third party.

And your point is? I shouldn't have protected the page because having made a look to see if the page protection request was reasonable I was no longer neutral? That is of course ludicrous. So is the more general idea that an admin action based on one set of circumstances makes them incapable of behaving neutrally in looking at a broader set is a false dichotomy, say I see two people rolling around on the floor fighting and I pull one off the other to stop the fight, are you suggesting that I can no longer deal neutrally with the person who I pulled off?

No, you should had replied to my comments because I was writing for you. But you were simply ignoring me (at best it is ... at worst it is ...).

3. Pgk, see Timothy's edit summary: "every word has been carefully chosen for its accuracy - now go away, sockpuppet vandal"? This was his answer when he was invited to state his reasons. Do you approve his behavior?

I haven't looked into the situation, but generally such summaries should be avoided, again it is about being *constructive*. That said if your excuse for continuing to chase him down and harass him is that he started it, then you certainly need to grow up. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. etc. something most people learned as children,. --pgk^(talk) 07:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is really hard for me to believe that you haven't looked into the situation! But I do take your word. You are writing as Timothy Usher had stoped his personal attacks. Your sentences are directed to me. This is at best ... and at worst ...

Well hard as it is, I haven't looked that closely into it, I was asked to protect a talk page since someone was repeatedly making unwanted edits. If Timothy Usher was/is/isn't/wasn't is irrelevant someone else's behaviour never is and never will be an excuse for your own. Wikipedia is not a battleground nor playground, we expect users to behave like adults. --pgk^(talk) 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, you don't want to make any judgment about Timothy Usher but you want to do so about me. Is this the way adults behave? Please review our comments on this part from the beginning.

If you want to perceive yourself as the victim in all this, I guess there is little I can say to persuede you differently. I gave you an opinion on his action wihtout looking in great depth, I gave you an opinion on your actions without looking in great depth.

Of course I am a victim. I just accidentally stopped by someone's user page and removed a personal attack. That was enough for Timothy Usher to accuse me of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, vandalism, etc. Why don't you leave a message on Timothy Usher's talk page and ask him not to make personal attacks? Do you believe he hasn't made ANY personal attacks?

70.231.233.118 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to feel you have gained some great victory by getting the last word then please take it, I have better things to do than argue the toss. I have given you a view point concerning trying to take two wrongs making a right, a view shared by every other admin I know, not to mention everyone I know in the real world. --pgk^(talk) 06:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pgk, No, I will not gain anything in any case. And yes, you gave a true view point. I am not fault-less here, it's obvious. It is also clear that you dealt with this issue good enough if not perfectly or respectfully. But I consider Timothy Usher to be guilty of at least one charge. He judges so quickly and makes accordingly quick decisions. That is my impression of his behavior as an external observer whether he wants to accept it or not. And yes, I, myself, am tired of visiting wikipedia for this controversy too. It is okay with me to close this case. 70.231.241.218 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking people

Do you block everyone who has a creative user name and then call them trolls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.19.93.2 (talk • contribs) on 17:16, 5 June 2006

Huh? Do you? I demand that you unblock User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me.

Notice that the unsigned comment above and this one signed User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me are both, in fact, by the same user: 4.19.93.2. Pinkville 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh. You troll, I demand that you unblock User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me.

Aido2002's RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aido2002

Hello. Please vote for me in my Request for Adminship! Thanks, aido2002 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

I have seen many people do that, and nobaoby has ever called it spam.aido2002 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Frowned upon" means nothing. If you block me, (I should probalby do this even if you don't) I will have another admin look into what you have done. Not only are you causing a problem here, but according to your talk page, and those of others, you have blockedpeople when you shoudn't have: that's and abuse of power. aido2002 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, call attention to that, and doom your rfa. -- Drini 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User:Railer 769

I find this blocking quite ill advised. You blocked him for an inappropriate username, but what's so inappropriate about it? --THE SUM OF ALL FEARS 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of User:Jonmon6691, please

He has been ruining my user page with a mild attack (which I myself have automatically reverted). Please block him for a few months and protect my user page. No one but I has the privilege to edit my own page. --Slgrandson 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with title

Thanks for the advice.

I am totally new at this particular medium, and feel pretty lost.

DocDee 08:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Awarded for your work in getting Red vs Blue up to featured article status.

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. DVD+ R/W 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

At the bottom of all pages regarding RuneScape, it says "these articles are also part of the RuneScape series." I wrote an article about RuneScape, how do I make it show up in that list? Thank you. --Kjgmusic 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sx64.jpg

Oh crap, you're right. Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission says:

Please don't ask the copyright owner for "permission to use the content on Wikipedia." Many people would grant such permission, but if this occurs, the content must be deleted, as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL.

I'll have to re-word the letter and send it again. -- Sy / ^(talk) 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another block comment

Got a question for you... without realizing that you had already blocked him the day before (I misunderstood the block log), I just indefinitely blocked User:Carbine bot. Since both were indefs, and the shorter-block-applies rule is irrelevant here, nothing needs to be corrected (i.e. unblock then reblock), right? Just an oversight on my part?

Thanks. Tijuana Brass^E@ 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

You recently answered my "helpme" tag and I appreciate that. I have a RfC filed against me at the moment. Am I permitted to simply drop the name, or am I restricted because of the current RfC. If you do not know the answer, I would appreciate a possible point in the right direction. I simply do not want to be followed around having editors take up arms against me because of prior differences of opinion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have decided to edit from an IP for the time being, then depending on the results of the RfC either stay as anonymous or create a new username later. I will however not redo any votes I have made in the past while I am under the anonymous IP. I see what you are saying about RfC, however if you seen the current one against me, you would see why its more like a witch hunt, 2 people have commented, and both have called me a sockpuppet. Is there anyway to get an admin to read over the RfC and see if everyone commenting is in fact following the rules, if the certifying user was in the dispute to even certify etc? I greatly appreciate your quick responces. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These Five ID.

Hello, When I checked vandalism on your page. Someone vandalized your page like this [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. These three ID were vandalizing your page. It's Personal Attack. In Wikipedia, Personal Attack is not accepted. So, could you block these three ID for indefinite. These ID are User:Average john user, User:Johnny the Portugese Guy, User:Johnny the Spanish Guy, User:Johnny the French Guy, User:Johnny the Cabal, and User:Cool Fish. Because There Five users are only vandal accounts. The ID that I've mentioned alreaby blocked indefinite? Anyways, I hope you could respond in my talk-page. Thanks. *~Daniel~* 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

While the legthy criteria may still apply, the name is by no means random. See Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (in the mainspace) for an explanation. I was just going through a list of banned users (it was a non-sequiter from Raphael1's arcom case) and noticed this one. Not going to press, just wanted to inform :) -M^ask 20:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected userpage

Hi, pgk, I semiprotected your userpage after three vandalism attacks, as I didn't realize you were online. However, since you are around, I'll leave you to decide what you want. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for looking into it (and explaining what the + tab is for!). I do not believe it is a POV dispute--there are several authors who have made constructive changes to the article from varying points of view without blanking it entirely. 216.45.156.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is content to delete all of our hard work. Thanks again. MrPrada 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL/IP autoblock

Seems OK for now. Thank you for your attention. There have been a whole series of these foul mouthed user names. Do you think there are several foul mouthed souls, or just one with a really childish attitude? Best wishes. WBardwin 07:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D

Thanks for unblocking me :) For some reason my large (~100,000ish) ISP chooses to use the same proxy address for all traffic, so any time somebody acts up I find myself unable to edit. Orderinchaos78 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Page.

I don't know why your page still vandalized everyday. Others must be blocked indefinite because others are also only vandal accounts like ID that I mentioned last week. So, other ID that vandalized already blocked indefinite? Ahh, I feel so bad that many Id vandalized your page. I hope no one will vandalize your page. I was assuming that other user still bother you. Please, You must reply in my talk page. Do not ignore my message.

*~Daniel~* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

*~Daniel~* 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message.

I think you don't understand what I said yesterday. I just asked you that ID that I mentioned were already blocked indefinite. *~Daniel~* 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Removal of unblock requests

Hello, with regards to your removals of my unblock request [15][16] I would like to stress that I find you were wrong and should never do such things again. As Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin.
Socafan 13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your wording "Sorry did I miss the memo which made you and Zocky the final word on such matters" rather impolite. Two others agree that you should not just remove an unblock request if you cannot present anything indicating that the block was ok. If you disagree, ok, no need to talk down on others. You could have contacted the admin who blocked, and the blocking policy suggests so. Socafan 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page. I just hate that vandal...I assume you would too, seeing as you got hit pretty hard yourself. :) Mr. Le fty _{Talk to me!} 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR blocks

"Isn't customary to add the edits according to which the block has been decided?" "No it isn't customary" Does this mean that I get blocked and will never know what I was punished for???--Panairjdde 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg

I, IanManka, give Pgk a thumbs up for helping me defend a 3RR block while I was away from Wikipedia.

Thanks for helping me out while I was away from Wikipedia (User talk:Panairjdde). You said what I wanted to say more eloquently than I ever would be able to. THUMBS UP! Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Pgk/Archive3, and thank you so much for ~~opposing~~ ~~voting~~ ~~scaring me~~ playing a part in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts

I use Flcelloguy's tool. I can do yours and tell you because it is off site if you wish(check your email).--Dakota ~ 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got a clue how I got the above message on your page since It was meant for another user.

Please just ignore it, sorry.--Dakota ~ 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi Noticed you're around at the moment. I'm relatively new round here, but I think I've spotted some blatant sockpuppetry (and vandalism, needless to say). Interested? --Dweller 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIG THANK YOU

You helped me SOOOOOOO MUCH today. And when I got done, I ended up with a star. SO, 1/2 of that star is yours, seriously. When I figure out how to do it I will put your name by it. THANK YOU! Ste4k 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{25 June 2006 20:06} Ste4k wrote: I'll just tack this one below my other one. Can you get hold of me in IRC please? Edit war is stirring. Thanks.

More thanks

Considering the number of times you back up my blocks, I'm sure you've done loads the same for plenty of other admins (either that or you stalk my block log!). Much appreciated for those moments when you just can't be bothered arguing any more. Cheers, Petros471 20:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More, more thanks

Thanks for the un-blocking, the proxy servers have had their user pages apended with {{sharedip}} which I am usure of the effects.

The proxy blocked is a manditory route for users of tgpi.com.au ISP and would have been blocking many users in sydney.

Thanks again. Dananimal 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, anyways

I figured out that it was the school computer I was using earlier. Thanks anyways.--Silver seren 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you please unprotect User talk:216.164.203.90. You blocked it about a month ago, it is my IP address’s page, and I would like to place a notice on top of it telling people to leave massages on my talk page as I occasionally forget to logon. Thanks. Nookdog 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I have a static IP address, I used to be a vandal and all those messages pertain to me, I'm just really forgetful about logging on, and now that I want to do good with the encyclopedia, I would just like to put a notice un top of the page about going to my regular account. Thanks. Nookdog 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Nookdog 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The code for helpmebot

Hello! The Mediation Cabal has created a spiffy new IRC channel, and would like to use a bot that runs a feature similar to the "!helpme" function of helpmebot. Can you give us the script for helpmebot so we can use parts of it to script our bot? --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanfordandson

You're probably aware of this already, but this user isn't just simply adding POV to Wikipedia out of ignorance. If you look at his talk page and contributions, you'll see a long string of problems. In particular, given his previous involvement with the GNAA article, I feel fully justified in describing his random addition of race-related speculation to articles as trolling. I've found explaining policy to him to be pointless—he knows it already, but is subverting it. Of course you're welcome to talk with him for as long as you like, but please do discuss it with me if you're ever tempted to think he deserves to be unblocked. -- SCZenz 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLock User:Dia^

This is the twxt of the message I received: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism through possible open IP

Your IP address is 84.190.38.235.

I hope that is the info you asked for. Is the first time I've been blocked and I'm not suere on how does it work.

Thanks to have taken the bolck away anyway! --Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC) PS I notice now that the User that bock my IP is now red...actually when I got the block the user did had an user page...--Dia^ 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I had to reposted because the kind user above decided to write on the to of my message instead that underneath....--Dia^ 19:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bot

When you have time, I would like you to help upgrade my bot; right now it is running version 1.00. Also, it has no whitelist, blacklist, etc, just adminlist, it won't report blocks even though it's configured to do so, and so on. Otherwise, it is working fine in lieu of yours but yours is better and more reliable. Thanks, --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Flagging

Can you review Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Fluxbot_request_for_approval as to the suitability of a flag? Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When reverts are vandalism

Lately I've noticed an unusual type of vandalism that seems to have gone on undetected for months. A few of my old edits have been reverted by anons, without explanations or apparent legitimate reasons. These reverts lack edit summaries, even the usual "rv". I can only assume that these reverts are being made in bad faith. An example is [17] reverted by [18].

These are substantial edits, and by the time I discover the reversions, lots more edits have been made, making extra work when I un-revert them.

I would suggest setting up Pgkbot or another bot on #vandalism-en-wp to check for reversions by diffing against older revisions. Those made by anons or new users, and those without edit summaries, can be considered suspicious. Also, given how long this example vandalism went undiscovered (from April 15 until earlier today), your bot should probably also scan through historical edits as far back as they go._SeahenNeon Merlin 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to "Here is my attack"

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It is my wish to make it clear that I want to return to the encyclopedia, and I am asking that my block may be lifted so I can continue my work here. I sincerely apologize for my actions.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια*16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the help. TheDavesr 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for unblock

I've brisked over and seen you've been tanked, but just wanted to say thanks for unblocking me. champ. Peter 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major18

I would like to ask you about a comment Major18 added to his discussion page over vandalism, in which he cited me as one of the vandals. When i tried to remove my username from his list you reverted the edit - i'm just interested to know why :-). For the record i have never vandalised anything on wikipedia, although ironically my own userpage has been vandalised by him! [19] (many thanks to Pilotguy for following it up). Would it be possible to remove me? --David 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Addis

Your decision not to unblock my account is unreasonable - I knew nothing about this blocking process, until it happened. I thought you were supposed to discuss it with me? I'm perfectly happy to cooperate with the system, and I'm waiting to repost my material complete with supporting references.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Addis"

The block

Where did you see the block message?--Nixer 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent unblock request

This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: have no clue what I did wrong
One or more administrators has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account.
The reason for declining was: Seems pretty transparent to me, a revert war on a template and you just happen to turn up and join in. No unblock

User violated no rules, he made 1 revert (so no 3RR) yet you refused to unblock him. why? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he a sock-puppet of? I personaly know this user, also did you do an IP check and a whois to confirm he is a sock puppet? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had asked him to do that RV so as not to break 3RR and conform to:

Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else

Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think he should be classed as a meat-sock as he isnt new, also it was'nt a debate he was involved it it was a conformity for a template as it used a copyrighted image where as the guideline stated only free images could be used. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 3RR is there to stop it, but i asked annother editor to do a revert so as to also conform to the 3RR policy. I suppose it is a catch-22 situation, but if i had read the gaming article you have just shown me i would not of asked him. Would it be possible to drop the block from indefinitley to maybe 24 hours? As it was a pure mistake (on my behalf) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did yesterday, but he doesnt seem to be around. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. User:Philip1992/Sandbox

I just like to say thank you for letting me do my sandbox. PS: Heres a link if you forget: [User:Philip1992/Sandbox]. --Philip1992 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Philip1992[reply]

Carlos Mencia and Joe Rogan

RE: I actually know one the person doing this personally, and he is doing it intentionally to prove a point. He will not stop voulentarily. Another user, wikibout, had a history of doing similar edits (claiming he's german) and decided to join in.

I submit that the information contained on Carlos Mencia's official website should be considered priority over all other hearsay. http://carlosmencia.com/content/bio.php

There is no evidence of any kind to support the rogue editors.

Need your help pgk with stopping some vandals. Here's the backround:

The Carlos Mencia page is being vandalised. I have reverted the page many times but it continues to be revandalised with false information.

Requesting a block of IP's that have changed the information about his mother and racial background based on a letter that Joe Rogan wrote on his website, which contains false accusations Carlos Mencia is half german half honduran, and that information about his parents and ethnicity is "sketchy at best" when IMDB, NPR, and countless other credible sources, including Carlos Mencia's own official website, provide detailed history that correctly coincides with the pre-vandaled version of the Carlos Mencia entry.

Thanks, User:Didonato

thank you

thank you for all your recent help with the unblock let me know if i can every pay you back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by hunter91 (talk • contribs)

Carlos Mencia

Thanks for adding a protect to the Carlos Mencia page, but can you please make an edit to the vandalism that was there when you set the protection? The birthname is presently "Ned Arnel Holness" from a vandalism right before you protected it, whereas it should be "Ned Arnel Mencia" (as per his official website). thanks.

Can you please at least revert his birth name to the correct version (Ned Arnel Mencia) as per his official website? You protected it while it was still vandalised.

Unblock/Reblock of User:Prof Johnson

D'oh!. Yes, thanks for fixing that. -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh thanks :) You were so quick I didn't even get to know I was blocked! Petros471 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2 t/c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English/British Bands

Hi thanks for your advice re English/British. It seems like I'm heading for an edit war with an anonymous editor on bands such as the Style Council, Coldplay and the Pet Shop Boys. Is it also true to say Cardiff should be UK rather than Wales? Bevo74 12:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding of a Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		As as way of saying thank you for unblocking me from the those autoblocks again and again, I award you this Working Man's Barnstar. FireSpike 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter?

Just blocked User:Cool_Cat@81.213.136.114 which seemed an odd name to choose, I assume it's not you. --pgk^(talk) 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just an idiot. Block at will if you havent already. :) Thanks for the headsup --Cat out 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rptng03509345

Needs WP:PP - baned user using as a soapbox. Others are linking to it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....

I dont mean to be rude, but you keep blocking me. What am I doing wrong?

Whoops, sorry, just read about the autoblocker. its coo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster2008 (talk • contribs)

User:Rhythmnation2004

Thanks for your support with this user. My hope is the block will give him time to calm down a little. I see the possibility of him being a productive editor if he can come to an accomodation with the basic rules. Best, Gwernol 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just to be a nice guy, I changed the title with a template hack from User:Pgk to User:pgk. Hope you like this! :-) 1ne 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should only use the rollback on vandalism. 1ne 17:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tojo Vandal vs. Airport Vandal (talk • contribs • page moves • Current Autoblocks • block log)

More collateral, 1 autoblock, AOL--AOL account 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Removing the Block

Thank you!!! Wandering Star 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I wikilove you...

[20] :) Syrthiss 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Never fear. Help is here. What do you want me to do, sir? --Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test of the helpmebot thanks. --pgk^(talk) 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Andy123> :( And here, I was thinking that the great pgk wanted some help! — Nearly Headless Nick 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive, confusing or unreadable text unblock.

Thanks very much for your help. All works fine now. :-) Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgkbot bugfix request regarding blacklist/greylist

Currently if a user's greylisted and blacklisted, it reports the greylisting for their edits, rather than the blacklist.

Blacklist entries should be reported over greylist entries, or it should report both, perhaps as "Blacklist, recently reverted" - someone can get on the greylist "accidentally", whereas blacklist means that they have been identifies as a "problem", and therefore its a more "serious" flag. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's some way we can show both? I think most blacklistings are probably manual at least for anons, so if we could show some indication when reporting that someone is both blacklisted and greylisted, this would help me somewhat in deciding which edits require the most scrutiny.... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism

Thanks for expressing your opinion. My comments are that we disagree about content, which is completely natural. I would suggest there was no requirement for Phil Welch to block me for a content dispute. Also regarding your views about Matrixism, the following provides verifiability [21] and [22]. Addhoc 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The quote was from Adam Possamai, who is a recognised expert in sociology of religion. If you are suggesting the references are insufficient to justify an entire article, then I agree. However, I would consider the references sufficient to justify a very brief mention, possibly in religion and the internet. Regardless, my point is this conversation is a content dispute and persons should not be blocked for expressing an opinion. Addhoc 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Student socks

Yes I saw those in the new users log, right as you left me that note. He just wants to keep recreating a POV fork deleted at AfD, apparently. Just block them all as an attempt to evade the block. :( Kimchi.sg 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh shush

im giving you a break, im gonna play some softball with my 4 buds. you do realize it's 4 guys doing this, not just one?

Just tell the people to vote for the compromised version, and if the vote begins and you leave me a message and a link to the vote, i'll gladly stop.

I expect a message within 3 minutes.

Thanks

Thanks for removing the autoblock. I didn't try to edit from an IP, I think I just forgot to sign in when I wanted to edit my talkpage. Anyway, thanks. Azmoc 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Thanks

for undoing an autoblock--Apeman 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walk away

I will, just tell CFIF the same thing. CoolKatt number 99999 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crossmr

He is being uncivil towards me, please help? CoolKatt number 99999 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being remotely uncivil. Do not spread lies User_talk:MarkGallagher#CoolKatt_number_99999. If anything your vague threat was uncivil.--Crossmr 21:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]