User talk:N96

Thank you for making a report about Trelango (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay more attention to your reverts[edit]

You reverted my reversion of vandalism at Lance Bass and summaried your edit as "reverting vandalism" (from a tool, I know) which it was not. Please be more careful. Autiger 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....[edit]

....for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated. CIreland 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:N96bot[edit]

Hi! Your bot, User:N96bot, has been blocked pending approval. All bots must be approved through a Request for Approval before they can begin operating. You don't need to take any further action, however before you use the bot, you must request approval through that process, and upon completion, the bot will be unblocked. Thanks, and have a great day! ST47 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rmasbury[edit]

Thanks for reverting the IP troll! Rmasbury 03:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page, I appreciate it. Trusilver 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks[edit]

Yet another thanks for fixing my user/talk page. I'm curious about who That Dude 07 could be... Mike Dillon 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the page move on my talk and userpage, i'm not sure what his problem is. He even claims it wasn't himself who did it, what a bogus claim. hehe Momusufan 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry was a white dog with black spots[edit]

Look at the photo on my userpage. It is a reference to the books Harry the Dirty Dog! It is the opening line from the book. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Why did u archive it before it ended?! ¡иąтнąи! | Talk | Email| 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage tagging[edit]

I've tagged your userpage as {{Sockpuppet|Bugman94}} as per the evidence presented on this page, the fact that your account was created 1 day after Wikiman53 was blocked, and the fact that you're now snow-closing and opposing RfAs. —« ANIMUM » 01:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligize. I actually did not use the account User:Bugman94. Also, my IP is as well different than that of Bugman94's when I view the block page (WHOIS of N96's IP | IP info of N96's IP). I did not realize that I created this account the day after Wikiman53 was blocked. However, unlike Bugman94, I do not use {{helpme}} tags. – N96 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can point out 3 things wrong in that reply: (1) No one unrelated to Bugman94 would know so much about him (his {{helpme}} usage, etc) (2) No 15-day old account is familiar with {{tl}} and (3) You don't have to point out a whois to prove your innocence if you really are. —« ANIMUM » 01:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you are closing RfAs early at ~10 days old doesn't help your cause either. Majorly (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement my IP is as well different than that of Bugman94's when I view the block page is interesting, also, given I've never seen Bugman94's IP stated anywhere (the checkuser didn't comment on it, either). Daniel 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugman94 contributes using the following IPs:

68.112.162.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) evidence of bugman94's IP stated on talk page

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

– N96 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know this? —« ANIMUM » 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-verify the IP info between the two IPs. IP of N96, IP of Bugman94. However when I log out at Wikipedia and when I click Special:Mypage, it is likely that my IP is 72.211.233.128. – N96 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified, but no one goes through prior versions of pages to find IPs. —« ANIMUM » 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would if they were being wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet and wanted to prove their innocence. I'm not saying he is being wrongly accused, but using the fact that someone is defending themselves as 'evidence' of their guilt is a total fallacy and completely unfair. Kamryn Matika 17:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just digging a deeper hole every time. This user is an obvious sockpuppet, without a doubt. Majorly (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a few things: (1) No account 15 days old copies all of godmode-light into his or her monobook.js. (2) Why do you refer to yourself in 3^rd person? —« ANIMUM » 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an explanation of why you are relating my contributions with Bugman94's as stated by checkuser? Are you trying to mislead my real identity to bugman94's as a similar checkuser case filed against Añoranza for being an obvious sockpuppet to bugman? – N96 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) No, I am not accusing you of being a sock of Bugman. However, I believe the circumstances execute the accusation: Your account was created 1 day after WikiMan53 was indefed as a sock of Bugman (there's the supposed relationship), you are snow-closing RfAs, you have created a working repository of scripts after 3 days, and you are familiar with his {{helpme}} usage. The IP evidence is the strongest defense against you, but who's to say you didn't fake the IP? I know – and the other users who have commented here know – that you are a sockpuppet, but the only question remaining is whom you are a sock of. —« ANIMUM » 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move along, people. The test came back negative. Miranda 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
		Hi N96, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS ^talk 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS id change[edit]

I am planning to change the CSS ids used in MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:Revision-info-current, to be in line with how we do for other such messages.

To make the transition smooth I will update the /monobook.css files for the six users that currently use those ids, thus you should not see any difference. You are one of those users.

After I have updated your /monobook.css you might need to bypass your browser cache to load the new version. (But for some minutes while I do the updates you will see the full versions of those MediaWiki messages instead of the "plain" versions.)

For more about this and if you want to answer or discuss this, see MediaWiki talk:Revision-info#CSS id change.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]