User talk:DoRD

unblock

Hi, how long do unblock requests have to stay on a talkpage when a user is indefinitely blocked? Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Indefinitely? Until someone else decides to blank the talkpage? Assuming you're referring to my recent undo, certainly it should remain there as long as the ani discussion is ongoing, and probably until it's clear that he's not intending to use the account any longer. —DoRD (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that if a user says he doesn't want unblocking any more he could remove the template as it has no value, the unblocking discussion is over as I can see. And insisting that the pleading refused request to please be unblocked remains there seems a bit like rubbing his nose in it, but fair enough. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I understand what you're saying, but in any case, the blocked user shouldn't be the one to remove it. It's only been a couple of hours, but it'll be fine if it gets blanked sometime down the road. —DoRD (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have removed it again , what do you think is the best thing to do? Replace it and revoke his talkpage privileges? Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning on doing anything about it myself. That page is no doubt on dozens of watchlists by now. —DoRD (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "non-removal" is for the duration of a temporary block so others know that it was reviewed. That does not apply on an indef, and ESPECIALLY a ban. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Often the template is removed by a blocked user in a misguided attempt to hide previous declines, so whether temporary or indefinite, I don't think that it should be removed by the blocked user. Given the high profile of this case, there's going to be no such confusion, so the removal is not such a big deal. —DoRD (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Template change undone; let's shmooz. -- Avi (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, DoRD, for interventions against the banned user. Much appreciated. (He's still at it from yet another IP though). MartinPoulter (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That one's now blocked as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the block of 24.189.168.173

Thanks for the block! I will continue to monitor if they return after it expires. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will also keep their talkpage watchlisted. —DoRD (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's much appreciated. Hopefully we can get User:IGeMiNix‎ back, but I fear that they have left the project permanently because of this disruptive IP. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Desktop article changes deleted ?

Why have been deleted my changes on Virtual Desktop article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop

How can I insert VirtualDesktop free open source program in the article http://virtualdesktop.codeplex.com

How VirtualDesktop is different from other programs listed in the article, example from OpenSuise ?

IGProgram —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGProgram (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments at your talkpage. —DoRD (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

From McCrillis Nsiah

I'm welcome again after my three day block. I don't like it when I'm blocked. I have problems with Acps110 editor and IGeMiNix ediotr. I have read their use taking page about me while my user was blocked. I want to speak to them upsetly about the trash taking they had with me. I want to be a great editor. So please, don't block me. I beg of you. And one more thing, don't put bad comments againist me because I was not speaking RUDE to you. Thank you. You are free to call me McCrillis Nsiah (which is my name in reality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply at IP talkpage. —DoRD (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued incivility and Edit Warring by 24.189.168.173

AARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

173 seems intent to continue to edit war on issues he doesn't agree with. I have tried to talk to him, but he keeps reverting! Please block him for a much longer time, to prevent further damage to the project. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your frustration, but please give me some diffs illustrating the problems. In the mean time, I'll have another look at their contributions. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you go... (Some of these are prior to your previous block, but included because of their continued re-occurrence.)

Tracks of the Crosstown line; I have tried to explain that the Crosstown line only has two tracks therefore you can't classify them as local or express.

22:18 Sept 5 with a talk page edit too [1]

14:45 Sept 5

Adding M is one of three shuttles during off-hours; it's not, see S (New York City Subway service)

Sept 5

Aug 23

5 is one of three shuttles during off-hours

14:38 Sept 5

57th Street (BMT Broadway Line); Adding over and over again that all trains use the local tracks; they don't; the middle tracks are a terminal for some trains.

Sept 4

Aug 18

Aug 15

New Lots, Brooklyn vs. East New York, Brooklyn; un-sourced

4 service - Sept 4

3 service - Sept 1

Thanks for taking another look at this. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will dig back into this in the morning. My allergies are acting up and the Benadryl I took is about to incapacitate me. If you'd rather not wait, feel free to send another admin over here for a look. —DoRD (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Okay, I've looked through their edits and decided that a block isn't the answer. Yet. Clearly, they are very interested in the NYCS and I think that they really are trying to improve the articles, but their attitude is getting in the way. I recall someone [That was you, I see] saying that they admitted to being a young teenager[2], so this looks like more of an issue of lack of maturity rather than malice, so I've left them a long message full of advice. While I was composing that message, though, they continued on with the incivility, but I'm going to wait to see what their reaction to my message is. I am loathe to block, but I will if it's necessary. —DoRD (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Well, it appears that my efforts were of little use. I guess we'll see if anything has changed in a couple of weeks. —DoRD (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That was quite a self-implosion. He just didn't understand what others were trying to tell him. Thanks again for your help with this! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(And on top of all of that, if I revert the G train again, I'll be in violation of 3rr! Doh.) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The mistaken revert/unrevert you did doesn't count against 3rr, if that's concerning you. Anyway, I'm assuming that school starts tomorrow, so hopefully 24...173 will find somewhere else to channel their energy for a while. I'm hoping that, after maturing somewhat, the editor can come back as a constructive contributor. They clearly have the desire and enthusiasm, but they just aren't quite ready. Nevertheless, I'll probably offer them a way out in a week or so, but a long-term block isn't out of the question, either. —DoRD (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

86.133.153.187

• 86.133.153.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi, sorry to bother you as I am not exactly sure at how to report vandalism. I have been patrolling the recent changes and came across this IP, he has done many edits revertings such as on pages -

Cap Napping

Carmen Get It!

Filet Meow

Of Feline Bondage

Little School Mouse

Solid Serenade

It seems he keeps on adding trivia without a source.

A few editors have warned his talk pages and he refuses to listen and is always removing the warnings.

Please take some time and look at those pages. Thanks! I went to you since another editor Acps110 has also gone to you about these problems. --IGeMiNix (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I hope Department of Redundancy Department doesn't mind me answering here but I stumbled across this on Huggle :)

If somebody has been recently warned 4 or more times about their edits then you can report them to WP:AIV. Admins will then look into whether or not the user can be blocked.

However, the IP is entitled to blank their own talk page. Usually that is seen as a way of them acknowledging that they have read the warning. It doesn't matter though as admins can still see the amount of warnings by the talk page history.

Hope that explains things :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just getting to this, but got distracted by some email and didn't click save for about 15 minutes. :D Anyway... (edit conflict) I'll take a look at this shortly, but for a (typically) quick response, reports like this should go to WP:AIV where many admins regularly patrol. You might also find some useful tools at WP:AVP. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well after 5 other interruptions, I see that the IP's been blocked for 12 hours. Cheers to you both —DoRD (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like wikipedia

It's silly to have articles on characters in Harry Potter when the Masada is poorly covered. It's been years and years and the thing is just not evolving to a level of shcolarship. Articles suck. If someone really does a great job of wrting somehting up, then they should publish it in a real journal. Or at least a blog.