User talk:Hiberniantears

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Shaolin Kempo Karate

I fear this is going to be hard. The (current) originator refuses to listen. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him for vandalism. That said, kudos to you for your patience and effort to bring him in a more constructive direction. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am militantly patient :) He seems intransigent. He may, of course, have a point, and it may be notable and verifiable, but his attitude leaves me allergic to finding out. I wonder if a shorter token block as an experiment might be useful though? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I support your duration. The user seems unable to see a hand of friendship, let alone grasp it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hiberniantears. I responded to Badams118's request for assistance using {{adminhelp}}. The user was not asking about being unblocked and there was no block notification template, so I was unaware of the block when I responded to him. After responding to his request, which was a long post with advice on creating the article in a subpage, and other matters, I first learned from his response to me that he was blocked. Please see the current discussion at User talk:Badams118#Instead of creating rubbish.... In short, I have asked the user to make a statewment that he will agree to reform his previous behavior, and I stated that I would speak to you about changing the block. Certainly there was blockable behavior here, but I'm not so sure this is properly deemed a vandalism only account. Of course, if previous action resumes upon a prospective unblock, a new block is not hard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with extending Badams118 a 2nd chance... but he'll be on a short leash. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support making him ASK to be unblocked, though. I'll also be keeping a weather eye on his contributions, but I'm damned if I'll extend any hand of friendship again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. He has conveniently not noticed the fact that the "notice you are creating a page that was deleted" was there every time he created it, and, of course, my many attempts on the article talk pages to get him to see sense, nor the welcome template I put on his talk page. But, if he wants to have a big, bad monster to blame, then I am big and bad enough :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. We'll see what happens... Hiberniantears (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It was inevitable. Bless him, he's scribbled on my talk page. Ah well, I am the big bad monster, then. Now where's my Yeti outfit? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I support a reblock given the post to Fiddle Faddle's talk page. I clearly asked the user to remain civil, and the first post after unblocking is a diatribe. I leave it to your sound discretion as the original blocking admin.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I choose to remain neutral. ~dons yeti suit~ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. As the guy who was attacked, though the user doesn't believe it was an attack, I promise to ignore the guy totally, even if he attacks me again (though I'll drop you a note if it happens), but I think we might choose to experiment by unblocking him conditionally once more. This is entirely your call. I'm not sure what the outcome might be, but the worst that can happen is you have to block him again. Whether we get an editor who listens and wprks well out if it is in his control, not ours. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at Kochi, India article

Hi Hiberniantears

I have been a user contributing to the wikipedia sections, particularly in Kochi, India, Kerala and some pages in Physics.

There is an issue I face in Kochi, India page. A particular group of people are trying to insert false statements into the Kochi, India page deliberately to show the city in poor light. As an example, there is the following false statement "Kochi experienced decades of economic stagnation from independence until 2003" inserted at two places in the article. This is patently wrong as economic stagnation refers to a near zero GDP growth rate, of less than 2-3%. There has been no such observation about economic stagnation in Kochi based on GDP growth data. However Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajithmohan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept on inserting this claim - even after one of them Rajithmohan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted that there is no reference proving the claim. Finally, yesterday Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted a reference quoting a statement from an opposition (Communist) party politician in 2004 claiming "stagnation in infrastructure" again with no other data on GDP rates !!

The vandals Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajithmohan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have desisted for a day after being issued a level 3 warning. Another Sathyalal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared, clearly deputed by the first two vandals to circumvent three-revert rule and continued editing. From the talk page of these three I could find that the three are connected and are coordinating vandalism on wikipage to avoid blocking under three-revert rule.

Further evidence of this being deliberate vandalism is that these three users try to remove information - with clear references - in the Economy section of Kochi, India pages regarding the tax contributed by Kochi to the state of Kerala. The three users engaged in vandalism, identically calls this "glorification" and remove this info !! While this information is easily found to be identical to that exists on wiki page on, say, Mumbai, India .

I request you to intervene and check the unbridled coordinated vandalism in Kochi, India pages and restore the credibility by enforcing the citation requirement. (Prathambhu (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC))

Full Protection imposed

Hi, I saw that the Kochi, India page is fully protected now, to prevent edit war. But, what if the user (User:Prathambhu) who is not willing to go with consensus, sticks on to his ideas, and keep on reverting the page? If you observe his contributions (Special:Contributions/Prathambhu), you can see that he is a new user, only editing the Kochi and related articles. His intentions are just to overtone the article. He kept on disagreeing with the reference of economic stagnation, but continued introducing other comments as well under the edit summary on economic stagnation. Even after User:Rajithmohan removed the reference to economic stagnation([1]), he kept on reverting the article([2]) !! From this, it is obvious that his intention is not just the disputed reference, but to overtone the article.

Moreover, he kept on accusing the other editors, who ever removing his edits as vandals. He is not willing to read WP:Vandalism and understand what vandalism is. He even issued warning to the other users, accusing vandalism. He believes that not accepting his points is vandalism!

If his contributions are examined, we can see that his intention was just to glorify the city he represent. This was removed by other users who developed the article to the current status. The article is now a Featured Article. That is why, we asked him to reach a consensus before adding disputed things to the article. --Samaleks (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have extended the page protection for one week. I agree that Prathambhu seems to be in the wrong, but my concerns mostly regard a lack of civility. I have suggested on the article talk page that the involved parties open an RfC to garner some outside views, and hopefully identify any legitimate concerns from emotions. If it is just a matter of better sources, this should be fairly simple to fix. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hiberniantears, I could get the GDP data from the state planning board, Govt. of Kerala and the same for the year 2002-2003 is posted at the discussion page Kochi, India with link to the reference (Economic review,2003). I hope to post the data for the previous years in the following days. Hope this will end the dispute on the economic stagnation since annual economic review by state planning board, Govt. of Kerala is the final word on economy of Kerala as it is compiled by state authorities.(Prathambhu (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi Hiberniantears, there seems to be a consensus on the dispute about economic stagnation in Kochi, India as User:Rajithmohan has agreed to remove the reference to economic stagnation from Kochi article. He has already removed it from the lead section, and I removed the disputed statement from the economy section which was left unattended. Hope this will end the dispute. Many thanks for your intervention.(Prathambhu (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Could you help me

I'm a new user trying to understand something. I feel that I have gone through the appropriate channels, but that resulted in me getting to told I will be blocked if I continue. I don't understand why this is or what I have done wrong.Racingstripes (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Origin of Melvin

Hi. Can you userfy User:Origin of Melvin for me for like 5 minutes so I can cipy it onto my computer, the you can delete it. I would really like to have this page. Thanks. Please respond ASAP on my talkpage.Cssiitcic (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

74.4.36.111 on AIV

Is there any you can block this IP user as well? The report has been sitting on AIV for almost an hour now and I don't want anymore vandalism to occur. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 17:21

I've been looking at it for the past couple of minutes. Will probably block in a minute or two. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 18:08

Blocking of Estuateinc

I would like to point out that you have not put a message on his talk page notifying him of his account being blocked. I don't know if it's necessary in this case, but I thought you would want to know.--Iner22 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes mom... ;-)Hiberniantears (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My Buddy Luis

Hey Umm You Blocked My Buddy Luis From Editing On Here... Because He Was adding unsourced information... luis didnt read the notices he has been sent by the administrators before he was blocked because he simply didnt know how to check his massages.. luis says hes sorry and he promises not to edit pages on wikipedia again he just wants to be unblocked... thank you for your time you can email e at ianwallace013@yahoo.com thanks again!

Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.231.71 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

72.10.105.220 blocked

Hey there. I reported User talk:72.10.105.220 to WP:AIV, and you blocked the address, but you didn't add one of those messages that says "You have been blocked for a period of such and such". Was I supposed to do that? --Gardenhoser! (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want to, but technically I am supposed to do it. For IP's like this one who are involved in chronic long term vandalism, I tend not to do it, although given the fact that I blocked for a year, I probably still should... coming right up. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Just curious, how do you decide how long to block the person for? --Gardenhoser! (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the frequency of vandalism. For example, an IP that has never been blocked before, even if they have a history of vandalism, will usually only get a block of 31 hours from me. 31 hours is useful because I generally assume the vandal is just a bored student in class or study hall. If they are equally bored 24 hours later, they will still be blocked, but someone coming along shortly thereafter will have access again. For long term vandals who have received many many blocks over a period of years (such as User talk:72.10.105.220, I will be considerably more harsh, but still take a look at the contribution history to see what the deal is. In the case of 72.10.105.220, there was a long history of blocks, the IP is registered to a school (bored students), and the first edit after a one year block was vandalism. Not a likely candidate to become a valuable contributor. Even still, I leave the block open enough that registered users can still edit from that IP. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool, thanks. --Gardenhoser! (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

I keep on telling everyone, there's already an episode table and that I have e-mailed Discovery, unlike everyone else, and I have been told they don't know when Season 4 will finish. So how am I going to add more episodes, when no no else does, when they're listed on TLC's site? 70.24.233.37 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have a legitimate case here regarding the material that you want in the article, I would suggest that you try taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, rather than simply edit warring. Looking over it briefly it appears that you are trying to use emails as a source, but I would also suggest checking out this policy on verifiability. Your email is not a verifiable source. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If I don't e-mail Discovery, how will I ever find out when the current season ends and the next one starts? That other annonoymous user came in and tried to change things that didn't need changing. I on the other hand, kept things the way there were, as created by other users in the past. 70.24.233.37 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried going to Dispute page, there's nothing there about the show. I want to be able to continue editing this show which is still currently in Season 4.

Also I'd like to point out the other argument. What proof is there that Season 4 has ended? I've asked others to give me proof but no one has. I have been editing this show for almost a year with no conflicts or problems until this other user, who has only been on a month, came in and "claimed" the Jon & Kate Plus 8 Season 4 was ending next without providing a source AND claiming there was something wrong with the layout of the episodes.

Where as I came in starting adding episode in Season 2, and noticed at the beginning of SEason 3, someone added an episode table, which I kept going. I also have been fixing any vandalism to the episodes, because other people have come in and have tried to delete/add/move episodes and messed up the table. I was the one who e-mailed Discovery last year and asked when Season 3 ended and Season 4 started and no one told me then that e-mails were "unreliable" so why now? I'll tell you why, because of someone else who came in out of no where and people believe him/her and again, without any proof.

I'll keep on and on about this until I get back the right to add episodes to the show again. 70.24.233.37 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute resolution page won't have anything about the show. I suggested you go there because it offer various means of settling content disputes. For example, you could open a Request for Comment, or a Request for Mediation to bring in the views of outside editors. As for the information, your email will not be accepted as a source, so I suggest trying to find a different way to come across the information. It may just be that this information doesn't enter the article until we have published sources to verify it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How does that help fix the episodes? The last two listed are now in the wrong order thanks to TLC chaning them around which is another reason I took the time to work on the episodes. All because of one user butting in this past week, when they weren't needed.

Here: http://tlc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=2.15585.55956.35599.x&start=40 70.24.233.37 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, if you have something to add to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jon_and_Kate, that would be fine. It seems that another anonymous user is getting the harassment as well, and we should try to make sure innocent users aren't hit in the cross-fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For your attention

Dear Hiberniantears, I should like to bring this to your attention. I do hope that you will kindly give it the consideration that it deserves. It is my considered opinion that some people on Wikipedia are abusing their administrative privileges; sadly, I have been reminded of Mafia practices. Kind regards, --BF 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Hiberniantears. You have new messages at Skarebo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skarebo (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mwalla

Hi you recently blocked a user called Mwalla and they are now evading your block with a sockpuppet detected by a check user BOT and listed to the growing list of sockpuppets on the sockpuppet investigation page. See discussion here, User_talk:Nja247#Hi, here User_talk:Literaturegeek#Note and if you have the time read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla to learn the major ongoing malicious harassing or even stalking of people and trying to cause fights and drama with anyone who challenge their fake data they insert into articles. After I reported them to admin board (and before you blocked them) they made an edit to an article in retaliation causing me to get into disputes when they faked refs, then came back on sockpuppets causing even more drama for myself and other editors. Read this page for detailed information. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla I request that all of their accounts are given blocks of at least 1 month for block evasion and an account creation block on ip addresses listed on the sock investigation page as this 1 week block clearly didn't put them off nor has the sock investigation as they are still creating socks and causing editors grief, two new socks in one day! I guess once the sock investigation has concluded the decision can be made whether a permanent ban is needed but in the mean time this nonsense I feel needs to be stopped by blocking their current accounts. It is not just me but other editors who have reverted their vandalism or disgreed with their fake data or gross misrepresentation of data or in my case for reverting them for vandalising user comments to say the opposite of what a person said who have been harassed by this user who follow you about to pages you edit and then battle with you. All I did was revert talk page vandalism and am now getting targeted by them following me around trying to cause me drama. They are nuts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman consul

I think it came time to get rid of those two unsupported statements in the Roman consul article which we alreeady discussed. I found where they came to the article from. They were added to the article by user Adam Bishop based on information from Constans II and Charles Martel. But in fact it was me who added both statements into these articles long time ago: [3] [4] [5]. At the time I did not follow strict sourcing rules and now I do not agree with myself. It seems Adam Bishop copied my own information into another article and you tried to defend it. I think I have the right to remove unsourced (and incorrect) information which I myself added earlier?--Dojarca (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. We just need better sourcing, which none of us have made the effort to find, although I would argue that the accepted existence of the emperors negates a need to find sources that state the consul in the imperial period is a shadow of the powerful office that existed during the Republic. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, it was added by me and I know that there is no source for that. About Martel (i.e. about possible conflict) it is simply unsourced speculation with no possible source at all (although it is true that he rejected the title, sources name other reasons though). About Constans II the sources are contradictory, but references to later emperors as consuls can be found very often, for example He lived about thirty years, in the reign of the most pious emperor, Justinian, in the fourth year of his consulship, in the second year of our apostolic lord, Pope Sergius [6]. This is a contemporary reference about Justinian II having consulship in 685 or 686 - after the reign of Constans II.--Dojarca (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I think that the spirit of the section is what we need to preserve. After Augustus, the power of the consul is wielded solely by the emperor, even though consuls still exist apart from the emperor. As time goes on, the title becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from its historical connection to a long lost past. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all right but what I am saying is that Constans II was not the last (ordinary)consul. Sources disagree here: some sources say it was Constans II and some that it was Leo VI. Since there is some evidence that Constans II was not the last, I suggest remove this statement. Many sources also point that Justinian II had special interest in the consular title and empathized his consular dignity.--Dojarca (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think that language is in the current version of the article... unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I fail to understand the last your post.--Dojarca (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have only been talking about the section of the article here, rather than the earlier section on the function of the consul under the empire. Just go ahead and make whatever changes you're thinking of, and if I have any differing views, I'll just bring it up on the talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad behavior

Hey there. I noticed an incident, but I wasn't sure exactly where to report it: User:72.84.45.173 has repeatedly made poor edits to Robert Gibbs, not exactly a clear case of vandalism, but not good contributions, either. When User:209.169.127.53 reverted one of his additions, he added the sentence again and then wrote "Jackass!" on 209.169.127.53's talk page. What can I do here? --Gardenhoser! (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I handled it. Page protection and short duration block on the vandalizing IP. In the future, if you encounter a similar situation, try warning the vandal on their talk page. The standard is generally to issue a warning, and issue another one if they vandalize again. After the fourth warning, you can report the vandal to this page where an admin can handle the blocking. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've been doing, I just wasn't sure if there was a different routine for this kind of interpersonal thing. Thanks again --Gardenhoser! (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I just wanted to say that your comment at my RfA was absolutely hilarious. Many people at IRC loved it. Sure, it sucks to be the object, but it was phrased in an excellent manner. :) I'd rather be opposed in a manner that shows creativity than one that is blatant "you upset me in the past". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Glad I could bring some levity to the process! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Maxtmartin

Hello Hiberniantears. Maxtmartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I released the block, but let's keep an eye on this editor. They appear to be little more than a MySpace type, but I'll give them another chance. If the pattern continues, we should just reapply the block. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pompey refs-error message

Thanks for trying! I've no idea how I caused that - I find the density of the article end-info boxes overwhelming enough - but how it reads in the editing page is just beyond me. I changed the existing confused refs system(s) to my usual. Can't find anything in the main text to account for it. Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. You're doing great work with the article, and the occasional format issue us bound to crop up... plus, I finally took the time to read Help:Cite error and learned something new in the process. :-) It looks as though the end-info box has a ref inside it, and since the box was located below the reflist tag in the notes section, it produced the error. I had to eyeball it, because when I simply did a global search for all the ref tags, the reference in the end-box did not turn up. That was a tricky one, for sure. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic! You have a new fan! Sincere regards. Haploidavey (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Micronations Contributions

I recently became aware of the controversy about your edits to various micronations articles. Thank you for putting so much time into them. I am just trying to understand your reasons for these edits. I agree that sometimes it is not always clear cut between what is a micronation and what isn't. However, I feel that for the most part, micronations are not clubs or societies. As to your edits to List of micronations, I agree that sometimes micronations were listed that weren't really micronations, but I think that some micronations you removed should remain there. Please leave me a message and help me understand your reasons. Thanks. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was all born of a lazy Saturday, to be honest. I was looking at the article and noticed that the scope of what a Micronation is was creeping to the point that obvious entities (like those German quasi-states that popped up during/after both World Wars) were finding their way onto the list. This led me to ask "what is a micronation, at the most basic level?"... A club and society was my best answer. A distinct variety of club, to be certain, but a club nonetheless. At the end of the day, a micronation is generally a club that has fun with the idea of being a sovereign state. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Like I said, I do not think that micronations are clubs, but I can see why you think they are. However, if it is decided that micronations belong in the clubs and societies category, wouldn't it make more sense just to put the micronations category into the clubs and societies category instead of putting every micronation in the category? This category already has subcategories for different kinds of clubs, and micronatinons would definitely be a different kind of club. As for list of micronations, I will look more at the list that you put on the talk page. Also, I am curious as to why you removed the link to Romkerhall on the Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations article. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that you were already changing the category before I left the message. Sorry that I wasn't up to date with what is going on. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I got that taken care of. The Micronations category and article are now in the Clubs and Societies category, but no micronations are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micromaster (talk • contribs) 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I appreciate the help! Hiberniantears (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked - 151.57.128.0/17

Thank you for your help. You are right: the IP block is still in place, however I can edit pages after logging in. But my Internet Protocol (object) can't edit pages. --Angelo.1961 (alias Big Beast) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Paul Christensen

You probably don't remember, but over a month ago, you blocked User:Paul Christensen indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. That wasn't strictly true. It was a long-standing good faith account that began to furiously vandalize the article on IDT Corp. This was a rather strange occurrence, which I then reported to an acquaintance who works at IDT. As it turns out, the operator of the account was a man called Paul Christensen (no surprise there) who was fired in March and proceeded with an Internet campaign to bad mouth IDT. Aside from his libelous edits on Wikipedia, he attempted to register several domain names such as ihateidt.com. Enigma^msg 03:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspected it was something along those lines. He reached out to me via email, and I asked him what the deal was with the intention to offer to unblock him, but I never heard back. I suppose that I'm surprised there has not been significantly more of this going on given the state of the economy... Hiberniantears (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

JCDenton and Arzel at AN/I

Sigh. Sometimes I think AN/I should be renamed WP:playground squabbles or similar. The number of threads that go

"Editor Foo said X",

"Yes but you said Y"

"yah boo. Y is correct, as this diff says. So there"

"sucks to Y. It should definitely be X, because of (exhaustive rationale)"

"Same to you with knobs on. And your mother's fat"

is appalling. Tonywalton ^Talk 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! Can we make a template of that to make AN/I reports more efficient? :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{POV}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 03:46 20 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the tip! Hiberniantears (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Meat-puppet of Shuppiluliuma

Hi there, I have to report a meat-puppet of Shuppiluliuma, namely User talk:85.153.27.4, who is continuing to vandalise the Next Eleven article by blanking out sourced information and is editing Turkish related articles just like the other meat-puppets like User talk:Shiham K. Thank you. 81.152.30.138 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:SPI

See my comment there, you have me confused ;). You will likely want to watchlist that page until the conversation there is over. —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

Please God no. The Daily Show would be just as bad though. If you keep up with such things, I guess it wouldn't hurt to let the rest of us know about it. It might make something interesting for the Wikipedia Signpost in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! It would be a total nightmare... unless we can convince Colbert to ask Colbert Nation to launch a denial of service attack on the government websites of the involved nations indicating a desire to add "Colbert" to the name of each country. :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Maiden City

This user is offering comments of yours as an argument that he should be unblocked; would you like an opportunity to express an opinion on the subject? (If the answer is 'meh, not really,' I will still like you as much as I ever did. Have we met?) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a note giving a little context. I've spent all my time this week working with nationalist or factional editors from Turkey to Greece to ((Former) Yugoslav (Republic of) (Macedon)ia))... Guess I couldn't count on my own kinfolk to live in Wikipeace and Wikiharmony! Hiberniantears (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tell me there are happy, peaceful, nice people in Ireland, too? Sometimes I despair. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the smaller one's country, the greater one's rage, unfortunately... Hiberniantears (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Maiden City 2

This blocked editor is using their talk page to continue to attack me with unsubstantiated claims againts me being a sock this has got to stop could you have a word please. Also I have probably been CU ed more times than most editors as Fozz and Alison would verify if they hadn't retired. BigDunc^Talk 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I see I'm also a sockpuppet; I wonder if we're the same person? I'm not too worried about it; the worse he behaves, the less likely he makes it that anyone will ever think it's helpful to unblock him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah suppose your right but I hate unfounded accusations being labled on me, suppose just let them have their rant. BigDunc^Talk 17:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm in letting him blow off a little steam on his talk page... but I appreciate the need for the retired CUs to come back. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Shame they both left the project they had vast experience with Irish issues. Think I will just take Maiden off my watchlist so I wont have to see their rants. BigDunc^Talk 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help

Hi! Can I ask for help? This is related to the article Occupation of Baltic states. This is an old dispute. In short, the article reflects only one point of view on the status of Baltic republics in the period of 1945-1991. The Baltic states insist they were occupied by the USSR, while Russia considers the republics were part of the USSR an the time. Some sources according their political agenda and country of origin, state the republics were incorporated into the USSR, and some - that they were occupied. But the article reflects only the point of view of the Baltic republics. I've tried to neutralize the article and add refernces, but any my edits were reverted. The article had been under meditation [7], but the Estonian activists not only did not follow the ruling, but even personally attacked the mediator. So I had given up. But today I see on the main page of the Wikipedia the statement that the republics were occupied all over from 1945 to 1991 which contradicts the very definition of occupation in Hague Conventions of 1907. I think that the fact Wikipedia is taking sides in such hard political disputes makes harm to Wikipedia and undermines its authority.--Dojarca (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)