User talk:Añoranza: Difference between revisions
→Open Proxy: fine |
Zer0faults (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
:Well, next time I post abusive stuff with an open proxy "in your name" and than ask some admin to block you. This is ridiculous. You really think I am stupid enough to write "You cannot block me, I will post anonymously anyways"? Furthermore, it was two IPs. As this is a sever case, I ask for a checkuser this is possible with one of the IPs. You cannot keep up a block for a "violation" you cannot prove. [[User:Añoranza|Añoranza]] 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
:Well, next time I post abusive stuff with an open proxy "in your name" and than ask some admin to block you. This is ridiculous. You really think I am stupid enough to write "You cannot block me, I will post anonymously anyways"? Furthermore, it was two IPs. As this is a sever case, I ask for a checkuser this is possible with one of the IPs. You cannot keep up a block for a "violation" you cannot prove. [[User:Añoranza|Añoranza]] 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
::Fair enough, I will restore the original block. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
::Fair enough, I will restore the original block. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::Statements like "you cannot be serious to keep this up" only hurt your cause. The admin stated the person editied from a proxy so what you are asking for cannot be proved in a way. Just relax Mr. Tibbs certified your RfC, or at least stop making those kinds of remarks to admins. While you did start a RfC against me, I do not want to see you perm banned or something over this whole thing. --[[User:Zer0faults|<font color="Red">'''zero faults'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Zer0faults#Signature|''<font color="Blue"><sup>|sockpuppets|</sup></font>'']] 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:31, 9 June 2006
You're definitely right ...
... but I'll keep the blocking for a week, since some es: administrators are suffering blackmail and other vandalism from the Arcor network. I definitely agree with you in this measure being an overkill, but I don't know what other thing to do. Sorry --Ecemaml 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- How can someone blackmail you via internet? There are strange people around... Añoranza 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
TfD &CfD
Hello, Añoranza. Please complete the TfD and CfD procedures for the "War on Terror" items. (See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#How to list templates for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#How to use this page.) If the proper subsections do not exist (I can't find them. A link should be in the CfD/TfD notice.), no one can make comments nor vote on whatever changes you wish to implement. Just an FYI. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I've fixed the problems. -- PFHLai 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: page protections
The page protection has nothing to do with any edit war. I didn't even know there was one. It is due to ongoing vandalism by an abusive user who has created several hundred throwaway accounts with which he posts an administrator's personal information into articles. After going through the trouble of removing those edits from the page history, it would be wise to semi-protect the page for at least a while, if only to delay having to repeat the process. — May. 7, '06 [08:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Ah, ok. Strange what some people use their time for. Can't you block the IP range? Añoranza 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The Opera web browser
You've asked why I prefer opera. You might be a Firefox fanatic, but I am not. I've used Opera before there was a Firefox. Firefox's font rendering looks bad on my laptop with a 16:9 monitor aspect ratio. Opera does mouse gestures, has more features by default, and is more polished than firefox in its current state. I don't hate firefox, I put it on my parents computer but Opera meets my needs better than firefox. BigE1977 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
About Iraq War
Honestly I don't think its worth your time to go through Zero's entire intro and deal with everything piece by piece. I would just revert it back to the version it was before he started this whole mess. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your comments have been noted. Trying to find a middleground is usually better then advocating someone just discard someone elses work. Today it seems me and Anoranza came to a middleground thanks to some discussion instead of constant revert war. Diplomacy usually wins over brute tactics, you should be more open to it. --Zer0faults 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
War on Terrorism
I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was decided the category should be deleted. You can challenge that decision but you cannot restart the category against consensus. It generally does not help to accuse others of hidden agendas. Añoranza 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Iraq War 2nd Paragraph
TO keep things civil I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Iraq_War#Anoranza_Please_Read. If you can respond so we can make sure you no longer feel like your information is left out I think it would contribute greatly to the 2nd paragraph. Thank you --Zer0faults 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are happy with the intro as it stands, I am as well. Nice to finally reach a concensus as its mainly your edits. Cheers for diplomacy --Zer0faults 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The war is most notable for
- a UN Security Council veto power lying to the Council
- spying on other members
- breaking the UN Charter with a war of aggression
- in spite of the biggest ever worldwide protests
- admitting that as holder of the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world WMD were used as the primary claimed reason just to appease the others
- inspiring the most widespread terrorism ever.
This should be reflected in the intro. Añoranza 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Replied in appropriate location. All further replies will be there. --Zer0faults 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Odious
Thought you might want to see this. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Note to self: Zer0faults abused checkuser Añoranza 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
ICC
Please could you comment about your edit on the International Criminal Court page, as per my talk page note. Thanks AndrewRT 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Panama Deception
Fixed your link on the above page, when using IMDB tag, you do not put the tt from the beginning of the title id. For example, your movie was "tt0105089", you remove the "tt" and are left with "0105089" as your ID. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Complaint about JDoorjam
You have been temporarily blocked for violating the three-revert rule at the article about Dick Cheney. After the block expires, please refrain from engaging in edit warring. I recommend you use the talk pages of articles you are editing if the edits are contentious. JDoorjam Talk 01:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, a warning is in place before a block, second, you should learn to count before blocking others, third, it is obscene to block others you are in a conflict with. Añoranza 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, that was only three. I'll unblock you momentarily. With that said, clearly your campaign of systematically changing military campaign names is largely contested by other editors. Use the talk pages and build consensus before continuing in this vein, or I'll block you again for disruption. JDoorjam Talk 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am still blocked: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Añoranza". The reason given for Añoranza's block is: "3RR". Your IP address is 88.73.92.206.
- And thanks for saying sorry with a threat. Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove warnings from your talk page. I have struck through the portion to which you object. JDoorjam Talk 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your behaviour is unacceptable. Añoranza 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
New block
Attacking other user's intelligence is a personal attack and you will serve out your block. Do not replace the unblock template. If you do so, your page may be protected as well. Thank you. Sasquatch t|c 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happened? =) Haizum 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- As there is absolutely no basis for my block, just two erroneous accusations, threatening me is out of place. Calling someone an "intolerable troll" is a personal attack itself, coming from the admin who blocked me. Añoranza 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence of them calling you that. Show it to me and I'll gladly warn the admin about that. Sasquatch t|c 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Intolerable troll" Please also note that two anon IPs posted "in my name" and that my current block was done because the admin who had personally attacked me wrongly assumed that I had evaded his wrong block. Please strike out the two comments that were posted "in my name" in order to defame me, block the IPs and bring this to the administrators' noticeboard. Añoranza 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence of them calling you that. Show it to me and I'll gladly warn the admin about that. Sasquatch t|c 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- As there is absolutely no basis for my block, just two erroneous accusations, threatening me is out of place. Calling someone an "intolerable troll" is a personal attack itself, coming from the admin who blocked me. Añoranza 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- What happened? =) Haizum 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Quit it.
Don't you realize? Every time you comment from your IP, your block gets automatically reset. Admins aren't involved in that. Just calm down and walk away. Come back in a week once you've thought things through. Because you know what? If I were an admin I'd have blocked you myself. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Just because an admin made a mistake in blocking you for 3RR doesn't give you the right to insult them. He tried to fix things. I've seen a lot of admins here who wouldn't even listen to your protestations that you hadn't violated 3RR. He listened and unblocked you, and then you insulted him. So come back in a week and consider this a lesson learned, ok? Kasreyn 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was not me who used the IPs, see below. Añoranza 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Anon posted stupid messages at Administrators noticeboard and a user talk page "in my name"
[1] and at Mr. Tibbs' user talk page. As can be easily verified, the IP is from another country, http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl gives:
- OrgName: Choice One Communications Inc
- OrgID: CHOC
- Address: 100 Chestnut St.
- City: Rochester
- StateProv: NY
- PostalCode: 14609
- Country: US
As posting in other users' name in order to defame them is a severe violation of wikipedia policy the IP should be blocked indefinitely. Sorry if this is a wrong suspicion, but as few people will have noticed my case I would like to know if this was user Zer0faults who is from New York as well, as he writes on his page.
Furthermore, as I have done nothing wrong and no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented, I protest my block. A cynic remark about someone who abused his admin powers in no way justifies a one week block. The user blocked in spite of a conflict of interest and in spite of the fact that I had not violated the rule as he claimed. He did not apologize and instead threatened me and invited others to block me. Añoranza 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There even is a second vandal posting "in my name". That one had even posted "in my support" revealing he was someone else at other pages: "I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda."
- Here he posted "in my name"
- http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl in this case gives
- OrgName: ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc.
- OrgID: TPCM
- Address: 1333 North Stemmons Freeway
- Address: Suite 110
- City: Dallas
- StateProv: TX
- PostalCode: 75207
- Country: US
As this was given as the reason for my block [2] I protest it. I also protest the admin not checking who posts at his page, although I admit I would not have thought of the possibility someone doing something that stupid either.
- Unfortunately you let yourself get carried away by your enthousiasm. However, your anonymous adversary is remarkably using the same ISP (Choice One Communications Inc and ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc) as suspected puppets of Rex.User talk:70.84.56.166user:216.22.26.46[3] Let's call it coincidence, just as the eery similarity in behaviour between Zero and Rex, and the odd choice of names Neutral arbiter (talk · contribs) and Zer0faults (talk · contribs). You could look into that some more.221.146.211.193 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Tibbs actually lives in New York if you were unaware. OOL-CPE-WPGRNY-69-121-132-0-22. The WPGRNY is the designation for his area. He states the IP on his talk page. [4]. That links back to "Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)" --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, so what? The IP he used is obviously unrelated to the two that posted "in my name". Sorry if my accusation against you is wrong, it is just that it is obvious a user did this who new the case well, and the only other one I could think of it Haizum. I have not had similar trouble with him as I had with you. Añoranza 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accusing people of acts is not appropriate. I am getting tired of the sockpuppet accusation as well as a RFCU has already proved me innocent. Millions of people live in NYC and I edit when at work from a company that has over 3,000 employees in just the 2 blocks I work in. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, so what? The IP he used is obviously unrelated to the two that posted "in my name". Sorry if my accusation against you is wrong, it is just that it is obvious a user did this who new the case well, and the only other one I could think of it Haizum. I have not had similar trouble with him as I had with you. Añoranza 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Smiley.svg/60px-Smiley.svg.png)
Bhadani 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!
--Bhadani 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, a bit difficult to post smileys at other users' talk pages when blocked erroneously. You could do me a favour by striking out the anon postings "in my name" listed above and point this out at the Administrators' noticeboard. Añoranza 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Open Proxy
The above IP was actually an open proxy as can be seen by the say it adds slashes to apostrophes. It has been blocked indefinetely but it still could be you and I see no evidence that sways me too much to the contrary. Sasquatch t|c 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, next time I post abusive stuff with an open proxy "in your name" and than ask some admin to block you. This is ridiculous. You really think I am stupid enough to write "You cannot block me, I will post anonymously anyways"? Furthermore, it was two IPs. As this is a sever case, I ask for a checkuser this is possible with one of the IPs. You cannot keep up a block for a "violation" you cannot prove. Añoranza 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I will restore the original block. Sasquatch t|c 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Statements like "you cannot be serious to keep this up" only hurt your cause. The admin stated the person editied from a proxy so what you are asking for cannot be proved in a way. Just relax Mr. Tibbs certified your RfC, or at least stop making those kinds of remarks to admins. While you did start a RfC against me, I do not want to see you perm banned or something over this whole thing. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I will restore the original block. Sasquatch t|c 22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)