User talk:Elockid

Hello and welcome to my talk page!

Some general guidelines:

Please add a Subject/headline when creating new threads
Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
Please sign your posts using "~~~~"
Please be respectful and be civil. Like everyone else I do make mistakes
If you post a comment here, I will respond here unless you request me to comment on your talk page or another page. You might want to watch this page for a response. You can do this by clicking the watch tab on the top right of the page
I'm busy in real life and may not respond right away to your message. Please be patient. Thank you.

Click here to leave me a message.

lightbulb

a-haaaaaaa! I knew I'd seen that stuff before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

Can you protect these two articles, Big Bang (band) and Tatsuya Fujiwara. As you can see in the articles history once InkHeart or EunSoo or whoever they are start editing those articles they never stop and repeatedly come back with a bunch of socks. 夢追人^YumeChaser 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Both pages protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I'm sorry you got dragged into this. 夢追人^YumeChaser 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You didn't drag me into this at all. I've blocked some of this user's IPs before. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare‎

Could you semi-protect his talk page. 4chan's playtime needs to come to an end on that page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The filter seems to be taking care of his page now. But I'm watching carefully. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie....just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Government in exile

Need your help with something. If a page's topic is disputed, but there is no disagreement among editors (every editor agrees that the topic disputed), are there is no active discussion on the talk pages, is it proper to use the NPOV dispute tag? Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the dispute. If the dispute is currently about the neutrality of the article and the article issues have not been resolved, then I would say that adding an NPOV tag would be proper. By your statement, there appears to be a consensus that there is a clear disagreement with the content, so adding an appropriate tag that describes the issue would be proper. The tag then may serve as a notice to the readers of the article who may not be editors themselves that there is a problem with the article or for other editors to take note and fix the problem themselves. Although there is currently no discussion, it doesn't mean that the issue(s) is/are gone. If this has been a past issue and the same issue has not been resolved, then the tag in my opinion should stay. I hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for long blocks

Those IPs are, at best, highly dynamic. A week-long block is going to end up with collateral. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're talking about 94.195.11.65 correct? I normally do 24/31 hours, but it's been abused before with no other edits. Anyways, I've reduced it. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, 'tis the one. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I've set the confirmed, rollback, and reviewer flags for your sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure you can just do it yourself, unless, of course, you're somewhere you shouldn't be logging into an admin account. Courcelles 02:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not anywhere else where I shouldn't be logging in at the moment. But in a couple hours, I'll be out of town, just want everything to be set. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government in exile

If you have some time, I was wondering if you could take a look and join the discussion on the GIE page. Thanks! T-1000 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mrpontiac1

Hey dude. MrPontaic1 is likely back again hopping on the same IP range after two separate range blocks. Also I've come across two very suspicious accounts that just popped up in the last few days. Might it be a good time for another Check User? Thanks Nirvana888 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind listing the accounts? If there's a couple CU might be helpful. What was the IP range again? Elockid ^(Talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for sockpuppetry being used by same person. Possibly time to unblock the main id.

Hi, You may recall putting a block on 207.237.243.185 (talk · contribs · count) because it was being used by blocked User:SingingZombie. SZ is back using the same IP. Although there has been a bit of a squabble over whether a character in Verdi's Otello should be spelt Jago or Iago - both spellings exist in reliable sources - I think that his recent edits have been constructive. There wasn't much response when I mentioned SZ's return at WT:WPO#User:SingingZombie back from the dead though there was a suggestion to talk to you as the editor who blocked the IP. There are some warning messages for this month on the IP's talk page but my investigation of the ones with the links to supposedly problematic edits is that there has been some over-enthusiastic use of Huggle or a similar tool by the users who issued the warnings rather than any vandalism on SZ/the IP's part. My inclination therefore is that we should seek to regularise the situation by unblocking SZ rather than block the IP. What do you think?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for 3 months. For future reference, you may want to file and SPI for quicker results just in case I'm not here or am busy. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually wan't demanding a block but consideration of the options. Basically we know it's the same user and the question is whether to block or to deicde whether the last two months of contributions are such that we cna consider unblocking the named account perhaps with conditions, discuss at ANI etc. There's more discussion on what's going on [[[WT:WPO#User:SingingZombie back from the dead|here]] where another user has some concerns but where I also point out that the warnings on the IP's talk page are pretty hair-brained.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think ANI would be a good place to discuss the unblocking of SingingZombie. But it would be better for them to ask for an unblock from their talk page (SingingZombie's) rather than the IP's. I don't have any problems with unblocking the IP though. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the repoy and the post at the IP page. Let's see whether SZ takes that route. It's a pity that only one other user ahs commented at the thread at WPO as it would be easier to determine a consensus with wider participation.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular fornt Of India

hi Elockid,

it had been noticed that the page had been protected with incorrect references which had been removed by me but were reverted back,the links provided for the last undo was false and wasnt valid which insisted me to delete the invalid lines.Kindly go through the invalid references and remove them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioras (talk • contribs) 1:36, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed in the talk page of the article before any further action can be taken. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Front of India.

Feel free to change to indefinite protection if you think it best. I figured most coordinated/sockpuppet attacks only last around 5 days or so, but if you have a feeling this could go on longer than that, by all means change the time. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 01:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was a mistake. I intended to put it for a week, same as yours. Thought I did, but realized I didn't. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, glad to hear convention hasn't changed that much since I left, heh. Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 02:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:87.8.103.233

Duly noted and will do as requested. Green Giant (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh FAR nom

I have nominated Bangladesh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protects

Is there any way I could have you consider full page protects for Malinvestment‎‎ and Monetary inflation for 3 weeks or so? They're pretty low traffic articles, so I if there's any need for {{editprotected}}, it should be very rare. Those articles are just going to keep drawing him apparently. BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...actually, it might be a good place to test-drive Lvl 2 Pending Changes against sockpuppetry. BigK HeX (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watchlisting the articles now. If he get's through the semi repeatedly with little or no edits from others, then I can upgrade the protection to full. Or would you rather have both PC2 and semi, PC2 and full, or just PC2? Elockid ^(Talk) 13:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC2 and semi would be awesome for those two pages. He also seems to be hitting the Murray Rothbard page too, but that one gets too much traffic to protect, IMO, so I'll just have to keep an eye on it. BigK HeX (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PC2 protected on Malinvestment and Monetary inflation. Also watchlisted Murray Rothbard and keeping and eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a godsend. This should keep him firmly at bay and deflate his motivation for spamming out these sockpuppets. Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing on a completely different topic. Regarding the top thread on your talk page here, uhh Wow ... that is quite a disturbing comment. Looks like a perfect candidate for "refactoring"! BigK HeX (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. Long-term abuser blocked and revdeleted. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that filth. Much appreciated! BigK HeX (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada main page locked

Hi, I was in the process of uploading a picture onto the Grenada main page, and was having some difficulty reducing the thumbnail image size. If you go to the page now, my image is 800x600 ... not thumbnail size at all. Before I could fix this, you locked the Grenada page and have made it inaccessible. Now the image takes up an entire portion of the page because it has not been reduced to thumbnail size. Please either correct the thumbnail size or open it for re-editing so that I may correct it. Thank you.

14:55, 24 August 2010 Elockid (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Grenada [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist)

Vkap (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's been resolved as you were able to edit the page. If you have any other problems, please feel free to contact me. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone and External links on Pune

Dear Elockid,

Sorry for PUNE (Requesting speedy deletion)

IN FACT on page Pune # Culture - someone had put External link as:

Pune's disposable income has been growing with an increasing working population inviting many expensive restaurants and pubs like Barbeque Nation, Mainland China, Hard Rock cafe etc. Further, there are a bunch of standalone restaurants and local chains like Shiv Sagar. A list of all the restaurants in Pune along with the menu can be found on Foodiebay - a menu pages website.

Is it vandalism ?

if yes then, what one should do to it. Plz let me know. Please enlighten.

--Shlok 19:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't generally considered vandalism. More closely as spam. Seems like a person trying to promote their company through an ad. Information like this is usually removed with a proper edit summary. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permission

I was wondering if you would consider either granting or possibly recommending me to someone for the grant of WP:ROLLBACK permissions. Being able to easily revert KiK socks after the SockPuppet Investigations would make save me a large amount of time and headache in protecting the project from this trespasser. He seems to have a fixation on me, which may be because I'm part of the small group of editors who most often ends up rooting out his troublemaking. If he knows I can revert all of the socks we find in Checkuser with the click of a button, it may even discourage him a bit further. Of course, having managed an online community of my own, I'm aware of the responsibilities and I pledge to use any tool with the utmost of caution. Thanks for any consideration on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granting BKH'S request for further admin rights would be totally inappropriate. First, BKH has initiated and forced through false and incorrect bans on wrongly identified sockpuppets on multiple occasions. See for example here. In particular, see the sad case of callous and totally inappropriate action here - which still to this day has not been corrected. This poor woman has been wrongly punished for no reason other than BKH's overzealous actions. This insane zealotry is his trademark. His track record of disputes with others is nothing short of appalling. See the talk pages at Austrian School, ABCT, and Libertarianism. The disputes he has blundered into have nothing to do with KiK. He is considered a POV-pushing socialist paper-pushing confetti zealot by many editors who know him better than I. If he does get these admin rights there really is no hope for WP. It will have become utterly corrupted by admins more concerned to use their corrupt power rather than allowing this project the openness it needs to flourish. On your talk page you admit you make mistakes. Don't let this be yet another one. - 122.110.18.200 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note how nervous User:Karmaisking must be about the prospect, if he feels the need to come plead with you! I hope this is taken as evidence of the potential usefulness of the Rollback rights in discouraging a banned editor from wasting his time and continually disrupting the community. BigK HeX (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and IP blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot. Here's another page where you can request for permissions: WP:PERM. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all that you're doing. I'm confident this will help keep the project from unnecessary and HUGELY time-wasting disruptions. I also appreciate the link. I'll have a look-see. Thanks a ton, Elockid! BigK HeX (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and good luck! Elockid ^(Talk) 13:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Franperu21?

Thank you for taking care of this yesterday, but I saw the exact same edits appear today from a new account. KimChee (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Franperu21: Chile, Peru
User:Concha211: Chile, Peru

Thanks. Blocked and tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian raids

Thank you for offering some form of protection for this article; apart from the minor annoyance factor; it seems like this editor is strongly supportive of the notion of banning unregistered editing; they're certainly doing a wonderful job of promoting the concept judging by their editing practices. Beginning about three weeks ago; this same editor began a parallel editing practice in the Battle of Prosperous article; where they add statistics to the article and refuse to provide a reference for the new stats or communicate with other editors regarding their reasoning, either through an edit summary or on the article talk page. I advised them early in; on their talk page, with no results and as was occurring in the Fenian raids situation; they switch IP's on almost every edit, so communication is little difficult. I'll put a note on the article talk page; but I strongly suspect it will be the same "response" as before; simply a continuation of disruption and ignoring other editors. Thanks again, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you feel the need to ask semi-protection on Battle of Prosperous, feel free to message me. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent range block for disruption on Race related articles

I wonder if you'd reconsider applying a semi-protection for a few weeks over range blocks for (Race (classification of humans) and Talk:Race (classification of humans)) This person is cruising various IPs, usually university related I think. I believe he's recently banned User:Mikemikev (IP edits to user talkpage) whose interests have never ventured much into non-race related articles and can't find it in himself to move on yet. So today we have this, and following earlier blocks there were this, this and these. My understanding of semi's and range blocks isn't that up-to-date, but I'm wondering if the semi's would be more effective and minimize the lock-outs to others trying to edit wikipedia from those IPs. He may well branch to other Race related articles that are under the arbitration umbrella Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision so this may not be the end of it either, we'll have to see. Anyway, thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered Race (classification of humans). I usually don't like protecting talk pages unless there's significant disruption. I'll keep an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try reverting the trolling on talk pages--the troublemaker's typically just posting WP:SOAP or WP:PA anyway. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marginalia is a pseudo science pusher. You just range blocked the top science university in the UK. When these punks don't get what they want they go crying to admins. Bottom line: I couldn't give a shit you're an idiot. MarginaliaSucks (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]