Jump to content

User talk:J.delanoy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,552,195 edits
m Signing comment by 85.181.124.121 - "I am not a vandal"
Line 165: Line 165:


== Vandalism? ==
== Vandalism? ==
You are extremely quick to revert people's good faith edits and call them vadalism. I edited Same Sex Marriage in Vermont reflect the fact that the section has been updated as Vermont State House and Senate have passed and overrode the Governor's veto. Therefore, the bill has become law. There is no "effort to extend marriage to same couples" anymore rather there IS Marriage for Same Sex Couples". I was just trying to reflect that and update the subsection time and make it less confusing and more up to date.
You are extremely quick to revert people's good faith edits and call them vadalism. I edited Same Sex Marriage in Vermont reflect the fact that the section has been updated as Vermont State House and Senate have passed and overrode the Governor's veto. Therefore, the bill has become law. There is no "effort to extend marriage to same couples" anymore rather there IS Marriage for Same Sex Couples". I was just trying to reflect that and update the subsection heading and make it less confusing and more up to date.


Perhaps, people can argue about whether that is a good thing editorally, but calling my edits vandalism is just plain wrong. I am angry about this and demand an apology. Please revert my edit back, too. I think I am correct in changing the title. You do it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.181.124.121|85.181.124.121]] ([[User talk:85.181.124.121|talk]]) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Perhaps, people can argue about whether that is a good thing editorally, but calling my edits vandalism is just plain wrong. I am angry about this and demand an apology. Please revert my edit back, too. I think I am correct in changing the title. You do it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.181.124.121|85.181.124.121]] ([[User talk:85.181.124.121|talk]]) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 15:41, 7 April 2009


My wheel-warring policy:
Admins: If you see me make a logged action that you think I should not have done, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo it without asking for my permission. However, if I marked the action as being done after running a checkuser query, or as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you should ask me or another checkuser before undoing it. In any case, if you do revert one of my actions, I would appreciate it if you tell me that you did so. Thanks!


The Signpost
26 September 2024



Chess, anyone?

Make a move...
View current game and archives

J.delanoy vs. World
Chessboard Moves
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
c8 black bishop
f8 black rook
g8 black king
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
a6 black knight
e6 black pawn
e5 white pawn
g5 black queen
d4 white knight
a3 white pawn
c3 white queen
d3 white bishop
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
f2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
e1 white king
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
J.delanoy to move...
# J.delanoy World
1 e4 e6
2 d4 Nf6
3 Bd3 Bb4+
4 Bd2 Na6
5 a3 Bxd2+
6 Qxd2 c5
7 Nf3 O-O
8 e5 Nd5
9 Nc3 Nxc3
10 Qxc3 cxd4
11 Nxd4 Qg5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Thanks 4 Nothing.

I see you were quick to edit the talk page on Mannfield but couldn't help with my problem.

Please block.

Please Block I.p

28 April 2011

7 April 2011

6 April 2011

4 April 2011

1 March 2011

28 February 2011

10 February 2011

7 January 2011

13 December 2010

1 December 2010

  • 13:5713:57, 1 December 2010 diff hist −4,713‎ Sex offender ‎ (edit summary removed)

29 October 2010

14 October 2010

27 September 2010

8 June 2010

27 May 2010

20 May 2010

13 May 2010

10 May 2010

21 April 2010

6 April 2010

31 March 2010

23 March 2010

8 March 2010

27 January 2010

19 January 2010

15 January 2010

17 December 2009

11 December 2009

9 December 2009

3 December 2009

.

It is a school I.p and and should only be used with an account. It has used only for vandalism. Thank You. Recon Unit (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. — neuro(talk)(review) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service ;-) J.delanoygabsadds 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your assistance

Hi, this user keeps reverting one of the edits that was not done correctly by him on article shahzada and is supposed to be linked to it's right destination. The word shahzada(son of shah) article that I nominated for deletion, already exists as a subsection in article shah. This user hesitates to link it to where it belongs, which is here shah. I have already asked this user not to revert this edit and discussed it on discussion page but I am afraid that without your help, it will lead into a edit warring. His revert, ends up into a dead link (a page that does not exists) howeever, such a page exists. I would appreciate if you ask him to stop reverting. Kind Regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring concerning Parvazbat059's edits. It's my first. I don't know if I did it right. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised

Rjd0060 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were a bot!

Anyway, I have gone through some thoughtful deliberation and decided that I intend to turn the bold, italicized, and underlined asterisk into an annual award that I shall bestow upon the sentient Wikipedia editor who most frequently beats me to the punch at reverting vandalism. I was wondering if you would mind if I, being your Padawan, named the award in your honor. Nothing is final yet, but I was considering calling it:

The J.delanoy Bold, Italicized, and Underlined Anti-Vandalism Asterisk of Diligence and Steadfast Dedication to the Integrity of Internet Reference Works Award

Is that acceptable to you? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaaa! That is awesome. :D J.delanoygabsadds 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep A Close Eye On The Sea Glass And Sea Pottery Page

Hi,


The person who keeps posting a link to the social networking site Sea Glass Lovers on the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery pages is continuing to do so when the consensus seems to be that these types of links are considered to be Spam. She has also falsely accused others of removing them who have not removed them I recommend that this be explained to her in the edit notes before she makes a huge mess here. I think if she were told directly that her posts are being reomoved because they are not considered to be appropriate that this might help her to understand this. She has already been banned twice on another Wiki website for similar actions.

Thanks,

Lisl Armstrong16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaglassmermaid (talk • contribs)

71.112.197.95

User talk:71.112.197.95 Seems to be confused about content addition to articles, perhaps blocking may be a little severe in this case.

Judicatus | Talk | Contributions

22:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Daisy of Love

I would like to contest your speedy deletion of Daisy of Love. This show is scheduled to premiere in a couple weeks. If you would like, I would be happy to debate it on an AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh heh... I don't know why I deleted that. It's restored now. Sorry for not paying attention. J.delanoygabsadds 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The show is a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off, so it's a wonder people (like me) still pay attention. Thanks for being so speedy with the subsequent restore! Plastikspork (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shoot...

Looks as if I missed our Mascot Guy by mere minutes. You took away all my fun of being an admin again.  :) Would have loved to have blown him out of the water myself, but I'm glad someone did. Do you think I ought to put this latest sock drawer contribution to the LTA page and do you think that a CU is warranted? He's been quiet lately, but now that he's back, he's likely to pop up again soon as we enter year five of this moron. Anyway, thanks for clobbering him. Have a great weekend! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe. I don't know about LTA, but I'll ask a checkuser if they think it's worth it to take a look. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 02:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the latest round to LTA anyway since there are a couple of other editors who are interested in keeping track of this monkey's antics. He's about as autistic as I am, the lying little sack. That "teacher" of his on that printing fonts bulletin board I linked to on the LTA page is all the proof I need that this guy is a freaking sociopath. Gotta run...talk to you soon. Your work is more appreciated than I can possibly express. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usher (entertainer) revert

I was in the process of cycling through the Usher (entertainer) article, and thank you for beating to the punch by a few milliseconds on reverting all the way back to the most recent valid version. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're welcome... J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block on School

I'm part of the IT support at a school at IP 216.70.136.88 , and we would like editing by users without wikipedia accounts from this IP address blocked permanently. You can see it's becoming a problem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.70.136.88&redirect=no . If you could contact me (tgwilsopedia) about how to start and end this blocking, that would be great. Tgwilsopedia (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Sócrates

Ok. I beg your pardon. Can I add Mr Sócrates´s academic title: 'Eng.' Or do you prefer doing it yourself. Thanks.--87.65.164.143 (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The kayla

Hi. Just looking for a quick clarification. I recently tagged this article for a speedy for G7 (which you approved). Was this the correct subset? Are cats considered people? Should this have been tagged as "nonsense," even though it was readable? Not a big deal, but I'm trying to become as precise as possible. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Well, technically... no, I don't think so. However, I usually interpret A7 as "anything obviously not notable". So I guess it is technically IAR, but I am pretty sure that most admins follow a similar policy. There are some who will adhere to the policy directly as it is written, so if you have a doubt, you may want to just PROD it. J.delanoygabsadds 04:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerith Gainsborough

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Untick (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that Untick has added this message to numerous other users talk page, including me, who are all regulars and who were all reverting instances of vandalism by Setzerulez210 on the said page. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a nuisance but is this sockpuppetry and are the next edits an attempt to cover it up? Just tell me to forget about it if I'm barking up the wrong tree or should just ignore it but I think they accused not only me but you and all the other editors who received a 3rr template message of being a sockpuppet. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J. delanoy

Greetings J. delanoy, this is Dirty MF Harry. You may or may not remember, my article The Exorcism of Shelby Sloan. It was "speedily deleted", due to vandalism. I am writing you to say, it was not vandalism, but was a recording of true events, that indeed did take place on January 26. Now I am sorry if it did seem vandal, and that you may have thought it as a personal attack, but it was a very real incident, and people have asked that it be put on here. I have the victim's consent and have her full permission to post the incident on this database. I would be very much obliged and thankful if you could undelete the page. Thank you and have a great day. Dirty MF Harry (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Dirty MF Harry[reply]

Well, articles on Wikipedia must include citations to reliable sources, both to back up what is being said and to prove that a subject is notable. In particular, [[WP:BLP|biography articles about living people must be extremely well sourced, and any unsourced negative material will be removed without discussion. Also, articles that are primarily negative will usually be deleted or drastically refactored, since articles on Wikipedia must be neutral. J.delanoygabsadds 15:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this event just recently took place, and there are no sources available that can be cited. As of this time, there are no recordings of it ever taking place, which is why I wrote the article, so that there can be sources of the event taking place. If you do not believe me, I can send you a video of the event, because we were lucky enough to have a recording of it. So if that is the case in need, just send me a mailing address in which I can send the video to, where you will be able to access it, or I can upload it to the computer, and send it to your inbox. Thank you very much. Dirty MF Harry (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Dirty MF Harry[reply]

Hi

I Am new to wikipedia I wolud like to know ware to get started.

Thank you!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for all of your edits to fight vandalism... Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Thanks for the shiny :D J.delanoygabsadds 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for the rollback rights, which will be helpful. I appreciate the trust and confidence you have placed in me, and I will use it wisely. All the best, QueenofBattle (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

You are extremely quick to revert people's good faith edits and call them vadalism. I edited Same Sex Marriage in Vermont reflect the fact that the section has been updated as Vermont State House and Senate have passed and overrode the Governor's veto. Therefore, the bill has become law. There is no "effort to extend marriage to same couples" anymore rather there IS Marriage for Same Sex Couples". I was just trying to reflect that and update the subsection heading and make it less confusing and more up to date.

Perhaps, people can argue about whether that is a good thing editorally, but calling my edits vandalism is just plain wrong. I am angry about this and demand an apology. Please revert my edit back, too. I think I am correct in changing the title. You do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.delanoy&oldid=282360437"