User talk:RMS52

If you leave a message here, I will answer here as well. If I leave a message at your talk page please respond at your talk page, unless I told you not to do so.

WP:PERM - clerking

Thanks, but no thanks. We appreciate your enthusiasm but PERM is strictly an admin area. We do all the checks again anyway and have some tools you don't. MusicAnimalBot was also recently created to finally put a stop to this kind of thing. If you know all about vandalism, your help is more urgently needed as a trainer at the CVUA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this caused confusion or disruption. I just noticed that this user was hat collecting and had requested 3 permissions or more at once, I was not going to clerk there. But it was just a thing I noticed, so I made a comment about it to help admins. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Those questions show precisely why you shouldn't be messing around there and that you need to learn about Wikilinks, shortcuts, and talk page format (basic stuff): WP:PERM, WP:CVUA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't messing around there, and it's not my fault that I can't remember a Wikilink. I know about them, but I don't really pay attention to most (apart from aviation-related ones) so... yeah. Don't blame me. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your links

[[Ireland]] links to the island not state. Also read the talk page. Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That disscussion is outdated and there also was no consensus on it. Start a new one on the talk page. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ireland IS a state. You dont seem to be very competent on here. Murry1975 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page, settle it there. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read the WP:IMOS page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, it does not say anything that backs up your edits on Dublin Airport. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are close to engaging in an edit war. This is not a wise move. Please revert your recent change on Dublin Airport and engage on the talk page before undertaking such changes again. The IMOS clearly states that the article for the state is the Republic of Ireland (to be pipelinked as Ireland), not Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing the infobox, you will see that the page links to The Republic of Ireland, not the article Ireland. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit descriptions

Would you mind not leaving misleading edit descriptions like you did at Cork Airport? I've noticed you've said things like "fixed typo" when you have changed sentences or added new information. Thanks, VG31-irl 12:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that I fixed the typo because, I had relocated the information into it's proper place. If this caused confusion, sorry. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insert an image

Hello, RMS52 I see that you insert three your images in Wikipedia, I would to ask you how you did to put it because to me it always fails when I insert the title. Sorry for my English!
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zurich00swiss: You can go to Wikimedia Commons and upload photo's there. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jet2

Hello RMS52. Please can you provide more feedback on why the changes to Jet2 are "unconstructive"? I believe that my changes are a more accurate and up to date representation of the company. For example, the image removed is not a true representation because that aircraft was a wet lease. Also the brand is Jet2.com, yet the changes reverted back to are inconsistent. ChrisWoolford1980 (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all. Some of the content you added may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2nd, you may want to read What Wikipedia is not as well. Also, just beacause the aircraft is a wet lease, does not mean we can not have a picture of it. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at What Wikipedia is not and removed any copy which could be considered promotional as I assume that is what you are referring to. The page has been updated accordingly. ChrisWoolford1980 (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisWoolford1980: Thank you! I don't really patrol that page much. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding a few things

I have interacted with you on a couple of articles now, and as you seem eager to learn, I will give you advice on a few of things I have spotted.

Dont re-add a ref that isnt RS, other wikis (and this one) cant themselves be used as references

Dont misqoute admins (as on dublin airport), they said place county country

Dont re-create AFD articles, Big nate flips out, without asking the deleting admin, or going thru articles for creation

Dont claim to have created articles when you have just pasted others work and used a redirect (you know where that is)

And learn that state (or sovereign state) is an actual term, country is ambiguous,

You have uploaded some really nice aircraft pics, and are quite handy at ref formating (i still stink at that one). So I expect to see you around a lot on here. Murry1975 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Murry1975: How was I meant to know Big Nate: Flips Out was deleted before? Also, The Big Nate Wiki is just the title, it.... is not an actual wiki, thanks! RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 14:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date format on Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Please note that US and Canada uses the Month/Day/Year format as Detroit in the US. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I live in the UK. Thanks, RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, you're quite welcome. I have changed it back. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hello RMS52 thanks for the barnstar, I would to put it in my User page, can I put it in my User or not?
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zurich00swiss: Yes, feel free to do so!

Air Contractors

Hi! I noticed that you've written that your favourite airline is Air Contractors... Well the airline has been renamed ASL Airlines Ireland, so you should update it ;)
just to inform you :) Wjkxy (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. You can correct errors if you want next time. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incheon International Airport

No, I didn't meant make test edit, please explain why you reverted my edits in Incheon International Airport User:Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 7:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It was unconstructive, with only one ref supporting a few things. It also may not meet wikipedia's notabillity guidelines. You also copied material from another website or source, this is unacceptable. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 08:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct

Your contributions related to SPI and sock puppetry have become disruptive. You have placed a block notice on a user's talk page. Only administrators do that. You have tagged user pages with sock templates. That's not your job. Leave it for SPI clerks, administrators, or Checkusers. The latest thing was your using a CheckUser signal. Those signals are intended to be used only by CheckUsers. I strongly urge you to stop doing all of these and similar activities. If you want to make constructive comments at SPI or file an SPI, that's fine, but that's as far as you should go.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Ok, there are two things I am unaware of on here.

There are no policies which say that non admins, checkusers or clerks, are not allowed to tag users with SPI tags. Infact, I think anyone else would be grateful that I am helping them out them rather they have to do the job. Editors who just "leave it to them" makes it seem like they just want to do everything. Also, that CU thing was just a mistake, it was no big deal. Also, placing block tags on user's talk pages is also helping admins. Even if I was not the blocking admin. I would've been told that by now as admins have seen this.

These are not disruptive, your comment shows that you don't want me around. I am doing checks through my computer, helping at SPI. If you want me to bug off, that's fine, but don't expect me to bother you.

RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. My comments are clear and still stand (I never told you to "bug off"), and if I see you doing anything similar in the future, you risk being blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RMS52, when an admin of Bbb23 experience gives you advice, take it and say thanks. He could have straight off blocked you for disruption. Murry1975 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Murry1975: I still don't understand why "helping" other users is disruptive. I seem to have been really targeted by editors lately. Also, if you had exactly seen what I did, you would disagree. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Note that the edits you reverted were actually real, and I did do checks on the IP's. Some were also before you left that message on my talk page.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RMS52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think 2 weeks is a bit long... For any admin that doesn't know I am intrested in socking, and I like to expose people and all that. Which is why I was hanging around SPI, Bbb23 then blocked me because I had made several edits about checking the user's and IP's through my PC. Bbb23 obviously thought I was faking, but I wasn't. I promise, if you need proof I'll send it to you. I think 2 weeks is a bit long, Bbb23 obviously thought that the edits he reverted were made after the above message was sent but no, they were before and a couple were after. If I get unblocked, I'll not patrol SPI and I won't hang around there. Just so I don't cause any more trouble. If an admin needs diffs, I will show them them before they accept or decline this request. I also got blocked for tagging user's with sock tags, I don't see how thats disruptive, it's helpful. I also got blocked for adding block notices on talk pages, I don't see how thats disruptive, it's helpful. Note to admins: If these are disruptive, I won't do them ever again... RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were warned, a few times, by different people with lots of experience, yet you continued (with edits like this, for instance). I personally find it troubling to hear someone say they like to "expose" people, and it's worthwhile noting that you actually can't do much exposing or checking. Messing around as you did in a fairly sensitive area where the volunteers are already overworked and underpaid is nothing but a time sink, and trying to argue in your unblock request that Bbb and others were wrong is a very bad move. In other words, I don't see any reason to accept this unblock request. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Drmies: I wasn't really arguing on my request. The edit you pointed out was real, I was helping. If someone came up and said to you "Can I check your game" and you said "No, because it's disruptive". How would they feel? What I did is not disruptive per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thing that make's me think "why am I here". I feel like I have a target on my back, there are alot of cruel people out there... RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No target. a. you mess around with SPI pages, SPI clerks and admins are going to notice. Very simple. b. you place an unblock request, thus inviting an admin to examine the evidence--which is what I did. No one is seeking you out. Yes, the edit was real, and no, it was not helping--it was precisely the kind of thing you were told not to do anymore. I don't understand your analogy at all, but my game is fine, thanks. Doing what was called disruptive, on the other hand, is probably disruptive, and that's why Bbb blocked you, and I agree with them. Again, arguing with the blocking administrator and telling them they're wrong, and then doing the same with the not-unblocking administrator, that's never going to go anywhere. When you're in a hole... Drmies (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm not arguing, when I did the first thing wrong the SPI Clerk told me not to in a nice, friendly way. You go against admins and they block you, just because they think they have all the power... RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RMS52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Look, I understand why I was blocked and what I did wrong. I was trying to help, that's all. I won't go near SPI cases again... RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 12:52 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

This is only a short block. I see no eason to make it shorter. If you make another unblock request I will withdraw your talk page access. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

May I ask what exactly you meant when you wrote that you'll check a user? Max Semenik (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: I was helping out at SPI, checking the cases. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, these edits were not disruptive. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking how? At SPI, a "check" means a checkuser. You're obviously not a checkuser. So: what you meant by "check"? Max Semenik (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: I was checking them through my PC, through some programming and other things. There is also a website called utrace where it tells you where IP'a are located, if 3 are in the same location they would be likely related. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is for IP vandals? --JustBerry (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's for every editor that is suspected of socking, if there is a case open of course. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this, all I did was help. Bbb23 clearly does not want me hanging around there, anyone can check users here if they have the right tools. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know the user's IP without a CheckUser then? --JustBerry (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, anyone can find out. But it does not tell you the IP, but anyone can gather the information. And after a while you should have enough information to solve the case. However, I believe that more advanced people can see their IP. It is possible, kid's have done it after watching a youtube video I saw. I'm learning more about this system so I can help SPI. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about, really. Max Semenik (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That response was quite vague, to be honest. You should note that even CheckUsers need certain ground or evidence to make a case for checking a user's IP. I'd have to agree with Max Semenik on this one. --JustBerry (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but it is possible, also, this way people don't risk being blocked. As this info a checkuser checks can be accessed by them again. This way it is private, and no one else will know. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentences appear to be logical. Can you be more specific as to what you're referring to? I'm curious as to how you're obtaining IP addresses of regular users without a CheckUser. --JustBerry (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if I need to, I'm not that kind of person that when they get an IP they send all sorts of stuff to it and messes up their internet connection. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you need to what? Even though you're not obligated to do so, of course, you've refrained from answering the question. Also, what you've mentioned above is illegal and is known as DDOS-ing. This is against every tenant and policy of Wikipedia - I remain entirely unsure why you brought that up in the discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize: you claim to have access to users' IP addresses without having a CU flag. The only way to do that is to hack the servers. Or you've just been lying to us all the time. Which of them is the case? I need a specific, direct answer please. Max Semenik (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: Not to interfere, but from past history, it appears that this user may have taken his words beyond the truth to defend himself, yet it has led them down a different path than they had anticipated. As you had implied, this user appears to have very little understanding of the inner-workings of IP addresses, etc. However, over-embellishing one's work and portraying oneself as superior or trying to impersonate a clerk or CheckUser is not permissible either. Hopefully, that should clarify the situation a bit more. --JustBerry (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation from Before

The unblock appeals above seem like a stream of consciousness and fairly repetitive, to be honest. In any event, for your own sake, I'd recommend you remove your last response to avoid talk page access withdrawal. --JustBerry (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, all I did was try to help. But I get blocked, people can be cruel sometimes but we have to deal wih it. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go back and forth on the issue, as I'm sure the issue has been made quite clear to you. Although it can be hard to face, it would be to your advantage to reflect on your actions, however cliche that might sound. When your block time is up, I would strongly suggest you move away from clerking and pursue other tasks, such as adding content to articles, copyediting articles, etc., to better understand Wikipedia's policies. I ask that you don't take my suggestion in the wrong way, but rather use it to your advantage as constructive criticism. To avoid interrupting any administrative discussion taking place on the page, I'll withhold any further comments or discussion until after the block has expired. --JustBerry (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: What accounts? RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please unblock ReflinkerMS? It is allowed

No, it's not. It's an illegitimate account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: ee ReflinkerMS' contributions at WP:PERM 146.90.90.43 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block the other one

This is not block evasion by the way. 146.90.90.43 (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoked.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I think that an indefinitely block is too much for what RMS52 does.
  With his IP he edits his TALK and not much TALK of other user.
  I think that this block is to be reviewed and put the block to two weeks for what he did.
  Sorry for my bad English.
  The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I was tempted just to remove your post, how would you know what the user does when he edits without being logged in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - @User:Bbb23
      He is my friend, I know very well what he edits with his IP and with RMS52's user...
      He edited alone my talk page and he responded messages in his talk page.
      Please review the block I'm very sad because he is my friend and he loves aeronautic sector like me
      The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please write me

Hello RMS52 if you watch this message, please write me an E-Mail that you can found in my User page in AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK SECTION.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock declined

Your message from your IP address (now also blocked) on my talk page has been noted. You seem unable to read or understand the page at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Be aware however that 'big/little brother' is the most common excuse and rarely convinces the unblock review committee. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]