::Thanks very much for all your help :). I do think he made some constructive edits when he revised the article to focus more on The Used. However, the 2000 start date looks to be original research, and the fact that Bert said it was "8 years ago" in an interview means nothing, because it could be an approximation. I'll have to tweak the article one of these days, especially since that style tag is still up. Although it may be a good idea to leave it if he returns to write the article ;). What's frustrating is that he keeps changing the information we have to go on, because "he said so". He contradicts himself all the time, and he is getting more dangerous now, acting like he's an inexperienced user. But once he goes back to making his old edits, he is very easy to spot. --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for all your help :). I do think he made some constructive edits when he revised the article to focus more on The Used. However, the 2000 start date looks to be original research, and the fact that Bert said it was "8 years ago" in an interview means nothing, because it could be an approximation. I'll have to tweak the article one of these days, especially since that style tag is still up. Although it may be a good idea to leave it if he returns to write the article ;). What's frustrating is that he keeps changing the information we have to go on, because "he said so". He contradicts himself all the time, and he is getting more dangerous now, acting like he's an inexperienced user. But once he goes back to making his old edits, he is very easy to spot. --[[User:Pwnage8|Pwnage8]] ([[User talk:Pwnage8|talk]]) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
== Barack Obama Related Article Probation ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Barack Obama|, [[:Barack Obama]],}} is on [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|article probation]]. {{#if:Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at [[:Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation]].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a [[WP:TEMPLATE|templated message]]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation1 --> -- [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This time he's "Jackk of trades". Look out for him to start editing Used-related articles very soon, as he is now an "established" user and can edit semi-protected pages. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's him for sure. I'll keep an eye out for him, Landon1980 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real familiar with using talk pages. So, please correct me if I'm doing this wrong.
I noticed someone (probably at Lennar) is deleting the "controversy" area that you and I and others have documented. I noticed you restored it, and so am I. Do you know what the process is for raising an issue about the improper deletions? I'd prefer not to go it alone. David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why is there an "archives" thing on your talk page? Does it have to do with things you wrote? David Tornheim (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I put this on my talk page, but I'm not sure if it alerts you to that or not, or does it only alter you when I write on your talk page:
I see they did it again, but maybe a separate person. Should we do Wikiscan? I haven't tried that yet. This is correct to reply here instead of your talk page?--David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like things are heating up on the Lennar site!--David Tornheim (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a level 4 on Kneakie1; but no new edit from HIM since then. However, now there's a new guy, Jehochman doing basically the same thing. I put a vandalism note in the discussion section and on both and their talk pages (but I didn't cite the specific edits--don't know how to do that easily). Jehochman did give a reasons for deleting, but his reasons were very flimsy or inapplicable. See for yourself. I'm somewhat afraid to push to hard, as I don't know how firm the ground is that I'm standing on.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now some user, Ckatz, who apparently is an administrator too, not only deleted my calling the deletions of sourced material "vandalism" in the discussion page of Lennar (is that okay for this user to delete what I wrote on the discussion page? I thought you are not allowed to delete what other people write on the discussion pages???); he also reverted back the Jehochman deletion of the BeyondChron, so now the link is gone again. Why can he just go and delete an external link like that without giving any reason other than it is an external link (EL)? I don't get it. I read the external link section & it seems like it is okay to me. I'm afraid to challenge either of the deletions Ckatz made, since he is admin. That would be messing with fire for a newbie like me. Any clues???--David Tornheim (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, you're more than welcome to enquire about any edits I make - although it would be better to ask me directly rather than asking someone else. (You should perhaps consider moving this conversation to the article's talk page.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz: At the time of writing the above, it did not feel safe to challenge you or anyone else who was deleting the stuff I and others had contributed to Lennar's "controversy section" that keeps disappearing, often without explanation. I felt that using the discussion page was particularly unsafe, since you already demonstrated that any concerns I raise can be wiped clean virtually without a trace (except in the history of edits section), sort of like the "free speech zone" for people who want to protest Bush or at the Democratic convention. I'm also not sure there is a remedy to that danger, as I will explain in the next paragraph. And having the other admin. join in made things look even more precarious. But first, I do want to say, I feel a tad bit safer now (with you at least), because you defended one of the edits I made. But with the other admin., no I don't feel all that safe challenging or questioning anything he does.
I base these fears on reviewing of Pokipsy76's page. He said there was a disagreement about content on a article and apparently an admin. who was contributing to the same article just went ahead and blocked him because that admin. did not agree with Pokipsy76's changes. My immediate sense was that appeared an arbitrary abuse of power, pretty much regardless of how improper the edits Pokispy76 made were. (I still have no idea what they were. For all I know he was arguing that space aliens will soon take over the earth). I consider it an abuse of power because there is a conflict of interest. The admin. obviously has an interest in the content of that page, and therefore he or she is incapable of acting as a disinterested, unbiased and objective judge--there is a serious conflict of interest. As a regular editor of said page, I feel that particular admin. should not be permitted to use his/her powers to dole out punishments to any other users of the article--only disinterested admins. should have that power. I read on, and was relieved that Pokipsy76 cited a rule that admins. are not allowed to use their power for an unfair editing advantage, which confirmed my feelings. Pokipsy76 subsequently appealed the decision, which certainly made sense, and I assumed he would win the appeal and the person who blocked him would get his/her hand slapped for an abuse of power. But, to my horror, the arbitration committee not only appeared to have denied the appeal, but unlike an appeal in a court of law--where usually either the decision is accepted or sent back to the trial court for review and further instructions (which I think was the appropriate remedy)--I think they imposed even greater penalties on Pokipsy76. Perhaps they agreed with the reason the original admin. blocked him--it could have been a very good reason (I don't know). But again, even if it were a good reason, I think it was inappropriate for the admin. to use his/her powers that way, just as it is unreasonable for a judge to pardon his/her friends of parking ticket violations (a judge in San Jose lost his seat for doing just that). So, the lesson I learned from that is admins DO HAVE AN UNFAIR editing advantage and to challenge or question that, is messing with fire. You better know what you are doing and know the rules inside and out before confronting them.
However, there may be more to the Pokipsy76 case than meets the eye. I learned everything from his perspective and I did not see the evidence, the reasoning for the ruling, etc. But until I learn otherwise, I think I have good reason to dread when any admin. starts taking interest in any article I'm also working on, especially if they have any difference of opinion... --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you looked at my responses about what I think is superficial reasons for deleting at
and at the Lennar discussion area. It seems to me almost anything on Wikipedia can be deleted at any time by making the "not neutral" "biased", etc. views... I guess I don't see much difference between vandalism and raising any of these defenses in one-liners... Seems to me, more work should be required of the person deleting.
Hello, Landon. It looks like we both reverted at the exact same time on the Economy of Zimbabwe article. I reverted that edit pretty quickly and thought I successfully did it, but by looking at the page history, you beat me! Oh well... (and as a side note, I completely re-vamped my userpage, so now it looks better than before) SchfiftyThree 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, Landon1980!
I am grateful for your confidence and for your kind words: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromoklaquestions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I had waited, you would have nominated me? Funny how things work :) Obviously, self-noms are slightly less likely to succeed, but I'm almost glad I chose that moment to nominate myself, as it seems to have elicited a convincing nomination statement on my part. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate your consideration, and if you ever need anything, be sure to let me know. Thanks! Okiefromoklaquestions? 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Hey buddy, thanks for reverting my userpage! I didn't realize it was vandalized. Qsung (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, glad I could help. Landon1980 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page too :) Caiaffa (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :), look at the bright side, at least we are now up to date regarding reality. Landon1980 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Applause!
I noted that you and User talk:Kralizec! had a conversation regarding the blocking of a SP-vandal only account. Good for you! I had an issue some time ago with this editor who accused me of bad faith when I recommended a similar vandal only account for being blocked. Kralizec convinced the editor who gave the block to take it off, and the vandal went back to vandalizing and got indeffed anyway. I appreciate that under normal circumstances, this is true, but, while Kralizec! says that doing so violates WP:BLOCK, it specifically says that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocks in the case of SP-vandal only accounts, and the more I study this editor, he seems to be applying a very personal and narrow interpretation of this policy as the only possible interpretation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed that, I wasn't thinking. I asked you on your talk, if you think it doesn't need protected I don't care. Just use your own judgment. Landon1980 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of protecting it (I had it open in another tab). It should now be frozen with an indef block message and the protected user talk page message. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IPs and blocking
Hey, I got your message on my talk page about reporting to AIV.
Reports for IPs are tricky because, if they're dynamic IPs, they may be shared among multiple people. If a user creates an account, we know (or can treat it as if, per the terms of getting an account) that one person controls the account. Therefore, it's easy to make all warnings cumulative. If they got level 2 yesterday, they'd get level 3 today and level 4 tomorrow.
With IPs, it's a bit more of a challenge. If the edits are in completely different areas each day, I'll restart the warnings, especially if there's been a break of at least a few days - since it may be different people. On the other hand, if they target the same article every day for a week, it's easier to say it's the same person at that IP over the course of the week, so the warnings would keep escalating.
Of course, any banners at the top of the IP's talk page can help. If, for example, a lot of vandalism is coming out of a school, there will usually be a banner identifying the school and, if they've been blocked repeatedly, saying that future vandalism could result in an immediate block.
Finally, the nature of the vandalism comes into play. Sometimes the nature of the vandalism (e.g., racist comments) warrants stronger and faster warnings than less malign vandalism would require. Those are the cases for warnings like {{uw-vandalism4im}}.
Hope that answers your question. If there's anything else I can do for you, just let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding jumping straight to level 2: if you look at WP:TUSER, it implies that level 1 warnings are for bad "good faith" edits, but level 2 implies they knew what they were doing. Again, it depends. If there's malice involved, I'll jump straight to level 2 - or skip from 1 to 3. Likewise, I consider {{nn-warn}} and the like to be equivalent to level 1 warnings, so I'll warn on the second inappropriate article creation with {{uw-create2}}. That's my take on it, anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few tips on deletion, speedy and otherwise
Two things: First, take a look at WP:CSD—a list of the criteria for speedy deletion. When in doubt, the criterion should work as a template for deletion, e.g., {{db-a3}}. There are other more specific tags: frequently used ones include {{db-bio}} for non-notable biographies and {{db-advert}} for blatant advertising.
Second, if you think a page was deleted before, click its history tab, then click on "View logs for this page". That will show any time the page was deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and salutations, diligent adoptee! I just wanted to let you know that an optional classroom portion of your adoption is now available at User:Xenocidic/wikiadopt. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions regarding this. Again, these lessons and assignments are completely optional, but may help you with your wiki-travels. –xeno (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tq6993
The articles are on my watchlist. The user doesnt seem to be making any constructive edits other than removing sourced genres from music articles and has stated he/she intends to ignore warnings and the consensus. So i doubt an ANI would see these as good faith edits. --neon whitetalk 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may noticed, the above editor has been blocked for 24 hours. They should therefore not only consider themselves warned regarding their non-consensus blanking but also understand the consequences of doing so again. If they do resume blanking, per their previous announcement, then report them to WP:AIV detailing the block and previous warnings and let other admins deal with it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang onto your assumption of good faith for as long as possible, it is often a very useful tool in getting round problems in editing among editors. Also, always feel that you can ask an admin (or other established editor) for advice before committing yourself to taking an action if you are not sure. In time you will get a feel for recognising which editors are there for the encyclopedia, which to promote an interest or viewpoint (not that this is necessarily bad, since fresh perspectives are always useful), and which are there to always disrupt. As long as you apply good faith in your initial interactions then I suggest you will do fine. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block
As i remember you blocked the Paramore article, as non user couldn't edit it, can you do the same with the Bryan Adams page, lately their have been many edit wars on the page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Reply
Landon, I disagree with your civility comment that you left on my talk page. WP:Civility states that "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors" contribute to not being civil. Me calling an editor who is lying a liar is not incivil. You seem to have misidentified the incivil party. Further, I see you and neon tend to agree with one another. This is fine, and it's good to develop the WP community. However, I am not the first to point out that neon, not myself, is asserting ownership over this article. In fact, there is a section in the Paramore Discussion page that specifically discusses his assertion of ownership over this article. WP:Ownership of articles shows that "Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)" definitely applies to neon. It's as though he believes his opinions ARE consensus. Therefore, I respectfully request you not make incorrect and ill-informed warnings on my talk page until or unless you have studied the entire situation. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I noticed you implied that I am immature for desiring consistency and fairness in referencing methods for the article. This could certainly be considered a WP:NPA. I see that you've been around for a while so I will not post a template, but please be careful with how you word your edit summaries. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thousand Foot Krutch Genre
Hey, I noticed you also are active on Thousand Foot Crutch's talk page in the genre dispute. I think that a similar solution to that of the Paramore page would be beneficial. I am writing to ask if you would be interested in helping me find appropriate genre references for the claimed genres. Wikiwikikid (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christian music debate
Hey, hope you're doing well. I invite you to participate in a Christian music debate that I've started. I did it to keep the whole thing in one place, because it's starting to span across several band articles. Thanks. — FatalError 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should invite Ironcrow? I know he says he's in retirement but maybe he still monitors things silently. He has strong feelings regarding this and I would like for his opinion to at least be heard. Landon1980 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let's see if he replies. I want his opinion to be heard as well, but it seems like he was serious about leaving. — FatalError 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Wickham
I recently re-wrote the Phil Wickham article, and I was hoping you could give it a look. The article was originally not sourced (the only source on the page was not a link to the cited material), and read like a label bio for an artist. I've posted a note in the talk page for the artist, but I was hoping I could get an opinion from an outside party. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paramore
The reasons that I gave in the edit summary for my edit was more than valid. Please do not post falsified warnings based on your opinion of what the content should be. Thanks. (>O_o)>SomethingX<(^_^<) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the warning was very much warranted, you have been warned about this once before even. You are ignoring the consensus of multiple users by removing a genre sourced to the max with well known, third-party, published sources known for fact checking and accuracy. Reviews are used throughout wikipedia, and are actually preferred over databases, etc. As long as the review is third-party, published and from a source that meets WP:RS it is more than OK to use. Landon1980 (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well Landon, I was actually just about to message you to suggest doing just that. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page protections
If page protection is to prevent repeated abuse why do you have all those pages in your user talk wizard fully protected? A brief look through the history shows that none of those pages have ever been vandalized even once, it would appear they are fully protected to stop good faith editors from inconveniencing you. Can you honestly say that if I create a talk page wizard that you will fully protect it for me so editors will not leave good faith messages where I don't want them? I doubt that is what the community had in mind when they gave you the tools. I know they are your pages but there is no need for a full protection they have never been vandalized. I'm not trying to be rude so please don't take this the wrong way. I just find it a little inappropriate that's all. Landon1980 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dropping by.
They are protected because previously people have been leaving messages on the page, where I won't find them, rather than reading and following the simple instructions which will redirect messages here. I rely on the "you have new messages" banner to see when someone's trying to get in touch with me, so if someone just blindly assumes that after clicking once they should leave a message at that page, I won't see that there's a message there. The banners at the top which said "please do not leave messages here" did not work, so I needed something more effective.
The message wizard is a way of helping people to find answers to questions for themselves, or redirecting questions that anyone (or any admin) could answer to an alternate venue. This means that users don't have to wait for me to come online to get a reply. It's not a way of filtering messages into different categories on different pages.
I hope that explains my logic. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I like that idea. Here in a day or two I'm going to create a similar wizard that will answer a series of questions so editors will not have to wait for a reply. I'll let you know when I'm finished so you can fully protect the pages for me. Landon1980 (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will just be making two subpages with answers to questions about template warnings, my thoughts on RFA thank spam, edits of mine others have a problem with, etc. If they are on the page already it his obvious they have read what I want them to, I could always add the pages to my watchlist I guess, but full protection will be very helpful in stopping others from editing the pages. I'll try and have them finished some time tomorrow, I'll let you know when I finish so you can protect them for me. Cheers. Landon1980 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing that, but bear in mind that you will have to settle on what content you want on the pages as you will not be able to edit them yourself whilst they are protected. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what? I'm a sex offender and a child molester and I stink like crap and I don't take showers or brush my teeth! So watch out suckers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmgordon11 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puddle of Mudd & Thousand Foot Krutch
Re: Puddle of Mudd: What I'm doing is inserting a properly sourced genre: nu metal. Maybe you don't agree with it. For what it's worth, nor do I fully. But that is how wikipedia works. We used -sourced- information, not personal opinion. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to back down on a band's genre because there's a source available that I don't agree with. But musicmight -is- a reliable source by wikipedia's standards, and I do mostly agree with the tag anyway. Of course, I won't object to other ones, so if you wish to add in more genres, chances are I won't object. Just leave nu metal, because it's properly sourced, and removing could (I stress "could") be seen as vandalism.
Re: Thousand Foot Krutch: Same basic issue. I'm removing "hard rock" and "heavy metal" and replacing them with "christian rock" and "alternative rock", both properly sourced. So again, just because you personally might not like them is no good reason to remove them. The only genre there without a source is nu metal, so if you want to remove that go right ahead. But again, removing sourced content could (I stress "could") be interpreted as vandalism. And in this particular case, I do agree with the genres given by the sources. Hard rock and heavy metal will be removed unless they have sources. Prophaniti (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect edit
This edit is 100% incorrect on Wikipedia. In the hierarchy of reliable sources to be used on Wiki... the internet is at the bottom. Books and Pro-publications are the most respected of reliable references. If all the proper ISDN publishing information is provided by an editor as a citation and it is verified using the ISDN checking tool... then it is a reliable/verifiable source. If you want to ignore WP:AGF and distrust a verifiable citation that is one thing. But before you can discredit the content the reference is supporting... go buy the book. Blanking referenced content is considered vandalism. Repeated blanking of citations and the content they support will result in a block from editing Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot expect me to have to go buy a book to verify something. Landon1980 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk, let's try it here, where I see I'm not the only one appalled at your lack of understanding of how this website works. Honestly, when I saw your "reasoning": that "It's not available online", I laughing out loud, I really did. It's just...ridiculous. Laughable. There is -nothing- on wikipedia that states if something isn't available online it's invalid. Featured pages regularly use these sorts of information, and as the above user says, published content is the very basis on wikipedia.
No, we can't expect you to go buy it. But do you expect other users to buy the book for you, or break copyright laws and photocopy the book for you? If you don't trust the reference, fine. But you have NO justifiable reason to remove that information whatsoever. It is properly sourced, and anyone with a copy of the book will verify the quote.
So, leave that reference in Deftones and Adrenaline alone. I have undone my last edit not to please you, but simply because it -could- be used as grounds for breaking the 3RR (although if your edits come under the heading of vandalism due to removal of sourced content, it certainly doesn't). I don't know whether your edits there are due to some personal vendetta against me or just because you don't understand how wikipedia works, but either way I say again: quit while you're ahead. This is not a threat, it is not a personal attack, it is a genuine warning that if you continue the way you are you will get no where, because however silly you think my edits are, they are totally in line with this site's rules. Prophaniti (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the alt. metal tag - I have no intention of continuing to remove it now that it is sourced. But it had been added many times before with no such source attached (not by you, to my knowledge). Prophaniti (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because as I say: I have no intention of removing it. Which is a lot more than you seem to be doing with validly sourced material, so please don't try to take any kind of moral high ground on this. Prophaniti (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could always find the book at your local library. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I did not use my ip adress. I undid an edit by an ip adress user that tried to add the new album to the main page, my comment was to wait until the name is announced. I think it was just bad timing, and yes I would very much object to it, I don't want any body to look at the history of my computer and what I do on it. That is only my business. However, I do see that you know a lot about wiki too, so maybe you can be a third voice is any future dispute? I don't think there will be any because I already agreed to side with the other user since they are more familiar with an open wiki then I am. Less than you (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for me to be blocked, indefinite blocks are blocks for uncertain amount of time, therefore after 2 months I decided the block was over and I hadn't made one bad edit, all very good edits and you make the bad edits. Less than you (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: USEDfan
First of all, thank you so much for stepping in. I really needed that to avoid further edit warring. Looks like we're the only two left keeping an eye on him. The most annoying user ever. I'll go gather my evidence now, and be back in a few minutes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More diffs that are identical to his edits: [1][2][3] --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for all your help :). I do think he made some constructive edits when he revised the article to focus more on The Used. However, the 2000 start date looks to be original research, and the fact that Bert said it was "8 years ago" in an interview means nothing, because it could be an approximation. I'll have to tweak the article one of these days, especially since that style tag is still up. Although it may be a good idea to leave it if he returns to write the article ;). What's frustrating is that he keeps changing the information we have to go on, because "he said so". He contradicts himself all the time, and he is getting more dangerous now, acting like he's an inexperienced user. But once he goes back to making his old edits, he is very easy to spot. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama Related Article Probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.