Jump to content

User talk:Wknight94/Archive 17: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 87: Line 87:
===immediate action requested===
===immediate action requested===
That's not good. I can't have my account being used for malicious purposes.
That's not good. I can't have my account being used for malicious purposes.
ban me, i'd rather not contribute then have a nest of vandals being made. thats not how i want to be remembered,Goodbye.
ban me, i'd rather not contribute then have a nest of vandals being made. thats not how i want to be remembered,Goodbye. [[User:Bloddyfriday|Bloddyfriday]] 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


==125.209.115.137==
==125.209.115.137==

Revision as of 15:48, 23 October 2007

Please note that I will likely respond to new messages here.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 | October 19, 2005-January 13, 2006
  2. Archive 2 | January 14, 2006-April 2, 2006
  3. Archive 3 | April 3, 2006-July 22, 2006
  4. Archive 4 | July 23, 2006-September 23, 2006
  5. Archive 5 | September 24, 2006-November 19, 2006
  6. Archive 6 | November 20, 2006-January 20, 2007
  7. Archive 7 | January 21, 2007-March 26, 2007
  8. Archive 8 | March 27, 2007-May 22, 2007
  9. Archive 9 | May 22, 2007-August 3, 2007
  10. Archive 10 | August 4, 2007-September 22, 2007
  11. Archive 11 | September 22, 2007-October 20, 2007

IPs evading block, WP:CANVASS, sock of indef blocked user

I see you correctly interpreted the situation here with regards to 66.81.157.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which you blocked with the note: Abusing multiple accounts: Admitted sock of banned user. -- however you missed two more sock IPs of indef blocked sock Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are:

  1. 66.81.157.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  2. 66.53.222.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

  • You may also wish to consult Gscshoyru (talk · contribs), who I believe reported the first IP sock evading blocks, and check User:Gscshoyru's various informative comments in the edit history, whilst cleaning up after this IP sock. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC).
    • S/he is obviously changing IPs at will and across a very large range so there is no point in blocking. I semi-protected the relevant pages instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I don't know what I'm doing. Would you mind deleting those two pages so I can move the Diamond Jaxx page to where it belongs? Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I got everything. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I hadn't realized (or had forgotten) that a "move" leaves a redirect. I can understand why they do that, to prevent vandals from renaming to something obscure which no one can find. Thank you for fixing. d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Liebman socks - 10/20/07

Here we go again... [1] --Ebyabe 16:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for giving me the proper information regarding reporting vandalism. I am sure I will be following your advice in the near future. Best Regards!NancyHeise 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for blocking the user who vandalized my talk page. But when I first saw the actual vandalism, there was one thought that came into my head, as to why they would vandalize my page, who they are. A couple months ago, during a dispute between me and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs), he made a statement (which he claims wasn't directed at me, but he was reverting an edit I made) saying "removing nazi propaganda". Because the vandalism was the user putting a large swastika on my talk page, and since that was the symbol of the Nazi party, do you think there might be some sort of connection? Ksy92003(talk) 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read Godwin's law - Nazi nonsense is a common theme in Internet disputes and vandalism, etc. So much for forgetting about Chrisjnelson, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe yeah I guess. I guess it's just that because of these conflicts, when something like this happens, Chris is the first one I would suspect, and I thought it might've been more than just coincidence that it the vandalism was a Nazi reference. Ksy92003(talk) 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You're letting Nelson ruin your time here and I really wish I knew what to say to stop you from doing that. I should do you a favor and start blocking you every time you say anything to or about him - but of course I can't. I can picture you getting frustrated when your eventual RFA goes sour and Nelson getting banned because he can't control what he says to you - and there's two great editors down the drain simply because they can't go to their own corners of the sandbox. It's quite depressing. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also because the vandalism was BW's first edit, and I was wondering "Why me? Why did he have to vandalize my talk page?" Instinctively, I thought that since Chris was blocked that it would be him because he's the only one who I've had conflicts with that I haven't resolved yet. I didn't really think it was him, but I'm the kind of person who always tries to figure out who does what. If I don't know the person, and have never encountered them before, I get curious. That's all. I don't want to spend too much time on this. Ksy92003(talk) 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What about this? A confessed rampant sock vandal and troll? I notice about 10% of the edits on your talk page and even I know there are lots of better candidates than Nelson for being a childish swastika vandal. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, guess I kinda forgot about that. Again, it was first instinct that I thought of Chris specifically because of the Nazi connection. I'm willing to let this go now; it doesn't really concern me that much at all. Ksy92003(talk) 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

could you protect Enzyme kinetics as well? It got hit really badly in the last hour. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's the main page article. It will subside when it's off the front page. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for reverting vandalism on Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful

LMFAO! -- But|seriously|folks  20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I saw your note on my user talk page of September 27th. By now you may have forgotten about it. So sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. In fact, looking at the original message, I didn't list your name on purpose because it wasn't directed at you. Sorry, again.

Please accept these easter egg early, you're still on the list for Easter 2008.Mrs.EasterBunny 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Liebman?

This one looks like another Liebman, except it almost looks like an actual citation. [2] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation or not, he's been banned. He can apply for reinstatement like everyone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

socks

you asked me why i was using socks, well i haven't been. my internet is disconnected at home so now im using a school computer. i wasn't even planning to use this account again but the school i.p. was blocked so its not me. Bloddyfriday 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

immediate action requested

That's not good. I can't have my account being used for malicious purposes. ban me, i'd rather not contribute then have a nest of vandals being made. thats not how i want to be remembered,Goodbye. Bloddyfriday 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

125.209.115.137

Were you aware this guys was publishing private phone numbers? Even though it's an IP, do you think something longer than 31 hours is warranted? Rlevse 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked for evidence that it was a dedicated IP but didn't see any. There are even constructive edits in the last few days. For all I know, it was just some stupid kid sitting at a public library computer. If they return at the same IP, then the big blocks will be more appropriate IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just asking.Rlevse 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)