User talk:Curps/archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised[edit]

Hi. I'm sorry my edits broke an external link, I didn't do that on purpose - perhaps you'll believe me, perhaps not. Wow, I'm up to my ears of being discriminated in Wikipedia due to my nick. I had been "BattleTroll" for years on spanish Usenet without any troubles, I'm user BattleTroll at "Enciclopedia Libre" as well as in Spanish Wikipedia. Only here at English Wikipedia I'm always rejected :-( Perhaps I shall use my discussion page to explain why I chose that nickname 10+ years ago (Tolkien and RPG related, by the way). Now to business. Sad you didn't even look at the discussion page as to *why* I made those changes. Please read them. Revert my changes if you please for them being against NPOV. Or (as you did) for breaking an external link. Or for vandalism - but please, don't just do it based on my nick. I'll rspect your decission and won't revert the edits of the anonymous user to mines again, hope you'll do it or at least help the article be less POV. Thank you. TrollDeBatalla

Hi, thanks for answering so fast. Regarding the name: yeah, you're right. I didn't know "Troll" had that negative connotations in English, it lacks them in Spanish. I was surprised to see the article "Internet Troll" appears in Spanish wikipedia, however I'm pretty sure that meaning of the term hasn't catched on yet - I've been "BattleTroll" for years (specially in Spaniard and Mexican sites) without any trouble.

Now, regarding the article: hey, it looks like the personal project of user "205.240.227.15" (who says is "ElJigüe"), who has been asked before to register and has rejected it (see the discussion page). I'm not the only one who thinks the article is extremely biased. You don't want to be personally involved, that's OK. I just ask you to please help me to "freeze" it for a while. For everybody's sake, I'm willing to see this article "frozen" (even if this user's edits are the ones that remain visible) so that community shall take a look at it and decide collectively what to do with it. I don't want to engage in a personal edit war with this unregistered user "ElJigue". On the other hand, would you mind me returning to my edits if I correct the errors I made (the extra "5" at the end and the destroyed reference)? You're right, I must be more careful next time. Yours Battle Olog-hai (I'm thinking about changing my nick to "Olog-hai" or the like to avoid English-speakers over-reacting at seeing my nick)

Wow, I wasn't even asking for this article to be deleted (I only wanted it to be edited to be more NPOV), but well - thanks, I guess... See you later!!!

HEY![edit]

i was just givin an example to the guy and you deleted it, also theres this WoW running around you better get him. i don't remember his username go to al copone it should be there, stop the wow guy, hell vandalise wikipedia if you dont stop him

wheeley his name is wheeley, eh will vandalise soon enough, hes just a WoW, you gotta stip him before he starts

Range block of AOL IP addresses[edit]

Please use extreme caution when implementing range blocks. Your range block of 512 IP addresses used by vandals, even for 5 minutes, will prevent thousands of possibly legitimate users from editing Wikipedia. The IP address ranges which you blocked, User:152.163.101.0/24 and User:152.163.100.0/24, are proxy serves used by AOL; sometimes, a different proxy server is used for each request a user makes from an AOL user, meaning that a vandal will use several AOL proxy servers. AOL is prone to vandals, but range-blocking a large portion of all AOL users is futile. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


User block[edit]

Heya Crups, it looks like my IP has gotten caught up with that "penis" account spammer. (Holy crap, that's good wiki != "omg crups l1k3s teh pen0r") Joehaer 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

""" Your IP address is 66.92.170.15. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Curps.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Holy crap, that's good wiki". The reason given for Holy crap, that's good wiki's block is: "user...". """ --Joehaer 02:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm on a speakeasy.net bridged sdsl connection near Washington, so the local POP's bridged links show up as that.

Troll[edit]

I've been dealing with that same anon for over six months...but appreciate the rollback on his contribution to my RfA talk page. Thanks!--MONGO 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Dlyons493Bot[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the deletion - I thought it was probably aimed at me rather than the Bot but it actually just looks random! Dlyons493 Talk 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Again[edit]

thanks again for reverted vandalisim from my page

(Theyab 21:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

Sock?[edit]

What? Why do you think I'm a sockpuppet of someone? What did I do? Willy O'Brien 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I also reverted vandalism on Dookie does that make me Green Day No does that make me a fan I cant believe just because I was going through Recent Changes and helping out people doesn't make me a sockpuppet I can help out and edit that doesnt make me someone else i cant believe you Willy O'Brien 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Government[edit]

I always do but I guess this time I picked the wrong version to revert to. Tnx for fixing it. Garion96 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I've removed some personal attacks from this page. I just thought I should let you know. Guanaco 03:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I put it in Japan because I felt that since it was the official sport of Japan, it had a place there. All of the ones I put it in I felt had a relation. When people search for a katana, doesnt a sport that teaches someone how to use it tye in with it?

Also, it isnt my site, I am a kendoka, and as I was searching for info, I came across this site. It has some information that most kendoka didnt know, and as it has only been up for about 2 weeks, I felt it would be good to link to it. I have no doubt that in a few more weeks this site will have an abundance of information on kendo.

Kendo and Kumdo and Kenjutsu are the same thing, different names, so I added it The sword/katana threads I added it because someone searching for swords may have an interest in finding out how a samurai trained. Japan: Because it is the national sport

wow[edit]

Wow, I am VERY sorry for doing that. Know that in now way was I trying to cause trouble. However, if it is ok, I would like to post it in other topics that would be related, I am VERY tired of hearing kendo called

"hitting with sticks"

ok sure, from now on I will link only to things that directly relate to kendo. :)

Thank you for your time, and again, sorry for any trouble I caused

Níðhöggr > Nidhogg?[edit]

There is currently a vote underway at Talk:Níðhöggr to move the page to a form without the diacritics and nominative case marker. As always your opinion would be appreciated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard[edit]

Do you think we should protect it, maybe for 15 minutes or so, just to get rid of this guy? Any thoughts? -Mysekurity 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi there,

I've been here at Wikipedia for close to a month now and I have primarily contributed in the field of counter-vandalism. And I must say, it is editors like you and me that keep the place half-presentable. Besides the point, could you possibly hook me up with some sort of revert button? I tried pasting the godmode-light.js script on my monobook.js page - however, it doesn't seem to work. I tried some sort of "requests for rollback priviliege" page but it was a dead end since I later found that the page was only a proposal. And lastly, I'm not so sure I can fly as being an admin, with under 1000 edits. Any suggestions? Tips? Shortcuts? Thanks plenty. --Master Jay 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I just noticed it in the page history. The Wookieepedian 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism[edit]

Hi Curps,

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage...I didn't know that it had become sort of a target while I was away! =P

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of User:80.37.155.149[edit]

I've created that page because it is my static IP, so if I sometime forget to check if I'm logged in (happened to me more than one time), users will see that it's me. —Claunia 19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking RoySmith-1[edit]

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, you might want to read User_talk:RoySmith#Please_unblock_me.21 --RoySmith 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize I could unblock myself. Neat. --RoySmith 01:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

BestBuy25[edit]

I prefer to have my home page redirect to Best Buy, thank you. 08:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your harsh vandalism warning[edit]

Hi. Regarding your vandalism warning at User talk:68.108.192.161 - Please consider not placing such an extreme warning as {{bv}} when the user has only a single non-productive edit and only three edits in total. Consider starting with {{test}} to give new users the benefit of the doubt that perhaps there were just experimenting. From there move to {{test2}} and {{test3}} before moving to {{bv}} or {{test4}}. Assume good faith and only become more harsh in your warnings if there is historical evidence of vandalism prior to the incident you are responding to. Also consider signing your comments so that a user can contact you to ask how to make productive edits. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I must have forgotten to mention it, but thanks for reverting my user page. I appreciate it! — Knowledge Seeker 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise - thanks for being so speedy on reverting my user page, too. --RobertGtalk 09:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
And mine as well, although I can't imagine why they thought that "small pianist" would be such a devastating insult. Joyous | Talk 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent moves and diacritics[edit]

I'm sorry I keep coming to you with my problems but could you look into the following?

Five days ago I posted a question on Talk:Emiliana Torrini on whether anyone would object to using the i acute in her name. The only person who commented strongly supported that. Since no objection surfaced I moved the page earlier today. User:CDThieme - who has never edited that article or shown any interest in it - has now moved it back and locked the redirect. It seems clear to me that he came to the page through my contribution log.

This is the same thing as happened on Níðhöggr where User:Jonathunder - having never edited the article or shown interest in it - forced a confrontation. The debate has now run the required five days and I can only hope that someone closes it soon.

Another thing that's bothering me are those contribution logs: [1] [2] [3]

Those three users have 25 edits between them in the last month and almost all of them are related to requested moves where they vote as a block in favor of ASCII versions. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but it seems to me that those users are exerting an influence on votes disproportional to their contributions to the encyclopedia.

I'm at a loss here. Do you have any advice? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx...Lawton[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the Lawton, Oklahoma article. The vandal, I am sorry to say, appears to be a pretty typical Lawtonian. --Steve (Lawton High '64) Tex 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Blackpool[edit]

Did you intend to make the whole of this edit? Susvolans 16:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It seems I somehow inadvertently edited the version prior to User:Rugxulo's edits. I've restored them now. -- Curps 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for cleaning up my userpage! Cheers, Jacoplane 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:69.117.6.28, User:DW, User:TMC et al.[edit]

What is the story there? None of those presumably banned users appear as blocked. Owen× 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I find this weird, too - so far, the only DW-related user I have found to be blocked is Joe Canuck - are there any others? --69.117.6.28 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, these usernames don't really ring a bell. Was there an ArbCom case? -- Curps 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've told OwenX to tell Jimbo Wales (I'm aware that they occurred long before you started contributing here, and that Jimbo Wales handled it), but I'm not sure whether he's done so or not. --69.117.6.28 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I appreciate you fixing my user page after it was vandalized. It seems that user has a history of vandalizing pages. Just out of curiosity how did you know he was editing my page, have you been tracking him. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I apologize for any dumb questions in advance. Malix 23:49 EST, December 6, 2005

Special:Recentchanges -- Curps 04:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I will have to remember that, thanks -- Malix 23:55 EST, December 6, 2005

Vandels[edit]

Curps, thnx so much for the revert. My first vandel, I feel so blessed.  :) Joe I 05:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Looking over all your previous notes, it looks like you're quite the effects user-page-vandalism-reverter. Thanks for your help with mine, and keep up the great work! – ClockworkSoul 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Emilíana Torrini[edit]

I'm not going to fight over this, it's not important enough. But it does grate on me a bit that User:CDThieme again moved the page to his preferred location and again deliberately damaged the redirect. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This looks like revenge for Haukur doing the same thing to Nidhogg. Both of them need to grow up. Susvolans 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Actually though , that seems to have been Wiglaf rather than Haukur. -- Curps 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Servebot 1[edit]

Hi... User:203.131.157.85 posted on my talk page, apparently confused, saying "im now a registered user in this web but i have noticed that i am always blocked by someone by the user named curps" (see diff). He manually signed it as User:Servebot 1. According to the logs: "Curps blocked User:Servebot 1 with an expiry time of indefinite (please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page)". Well, apparently you've unblocked him now, but what was the block for? I just want to make sure things are all cleared up for him. Coffee 13:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! I can't believe I didn't see it earlier... --ApolloBoy 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

User: RSPW Coaster[edit]

I noticed you have reverted vandalism on my user page from this user. Please take note of his numerous attacks on my talk page, as well as several articles that I have contributed to. This user is actually the latest in a long line of "DinkSocks" (as the template for marking his many accounts is named) that are created merely to cause trouble on my user/talk pages and entries I've contrinuted to. Your attention regarding this latest nuisance would be greatly appreciated. Chadbryant 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might wish to consider filing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. This would result in both sides documenting their complaints against the other (be careful not to undertake any action that could get yourself sanctioned though). -- Curps 05:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps he might want to consider not being such a whiny douchebag. Chadbryant is repeatedly removing remarks placed there by Wikipedia administrators regarding his behavior towards the 3RR rule. Also, he has had a link on his talk page (near the top of the page) which could be considered a deragatory or inflammatory site. Oh hell, who am I a kidding? It IS a deragatory and inflammatory site. The only reason he links to it is because of his obsessive and spiteful nature. At the very least, the link's gotta go, under the "personal attack" rules set down by Wikipedia. -- RSPW Poster 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, somebody needs to take somebody to RfC or RfArb. I'm not sure who's right, but I see ChadBryant posting under his own account but an army of accounts being created on the other side, all making pretty much the same set of edits and reverts. You're really insisting that "AnaleaseBryant" isn't intended as a mocking sockpuppet/impostor of ChadBryant? [4] I also see a number of other admins reverting your edits. If you have some legitimate complaints against ChadBryant, stick to one username for credibility and file an RfC against him. -- Curps 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for correcting the typo on my userpage. As you probably know my French isn't that good. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

rec.sport.pro-wrestling[edit]

Regardless of how you feel about the posters involved with the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry, you are clearly replacing the text within the article with an edit that has already been discussed on the talk page for the entry. The consensus from several Wikipedia administrators, including Mel Etitis, was that certain information should not be put into the article, and indeed should be left out of it entirely. If you must feel the need to revert, then revert to a stage wherein that information does not exist inside the edit.

Read the talk page for the entry if you are confused about what I am posting about. Kermit the Gorf 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Hi Curps, Thanks for reverting my user page, 128.253.117.68 seems to have it in for me. I think that is the 3rd time he's messed with my user page. Again Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should say 128.253.117.63, 128.253.117.71, and 128.253.117.68 :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine too. Mushroom 05:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine as well.--Shanel 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Stoke-on-Turn - Thanks for getting rid of all that music hall nonsense (music hall was never folk lore), the first was just about acceptable (and authentic) but the other two showed up the first for the tat that it is. Sincerely, NoelWalley 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could u block[edit]

Hi could you block Bubbagold89 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log). Thanks Lincher 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My userpage lists some of the vandals that I saw, if you want to take a look and block some. Lincher 19:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I have replied to your comment on my user page. Thanks! Ian13 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have updated it - since I found a cure, thanks for pointing it out to me! Ian13 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User Chadbryant & your behavior as such[edit]

I think that you need to stop making such snap judgements and doing nothing but immediately reverting my edits. Let me see if I can explain to you my motivations here, at least a little bit of them. When Chadbryant places his "DinkSock" sockpuppet accusation onto a User account, he does so with no rhyme or reason. He is not a Wikiadmin, and thus cannot sense or see IP numbers or DNS registrations; in no way can he tell who is coming from where, unless that person is not logged into an account, and then of course the IP number is available for viewing. He has no authority to post a User account as a sockpuppet -- he has not been given permission by any Wikipedi admin (Mel Etitis included) to act in loco sockpuppetis or whatever for them, and he simply does not have the authority or user ability to make such a judgement while in the capacity of a Wikipedia user.

This was pointed out to him by Wikiuser TruthCrusader when he edited Wikiuser RSPW Poster; Chad of course predictably ignored the remarks and reverted the entry back into "sockpuppet form." So, let me be clear here: Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always been of the assumption that only a Wikiadmin could place a sockpuppet accusation onto an account. Indeed, when Wikiuser StephenSignorelli reverted the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article back into a form that had been declared of negative quality from no more than three different Wikiadmins, this was shown to me by one of the admins themselves. As a result of the handle -- as well as the history, edit, and contribution list from this person -- I placed a "suspected sockpuppet of Chadbryant" tag onto the account. The admin promptly came along and deleted the remarks. Why? Because apparantly that was what they were supposed to do. I was informed that there was no evidence to this in the contrary; yet despite all of this, a Salt Lake City IP (the physical location of Mr. Chadbryant) is going around at the moment vandalising user articles and user talk, and could I still put a sockpuppet accusation in? No, I could not.

I hope I've been clear here. Yes, Chadbryant and I have a history of negative feelings towards each other (well, he's actually a homosexual sociopath who has unrequited love towards me, but that's another story altogether), but he does not have authority in any capacity to declare sockpuppets, yet admins like you will revert them back to the accusation IMMEDIATELY upon seeing it changed! Why is that? What makes it fair that Chad, with no position or authority of his own, can simply romp along placing sockpuppet accusations willy-nilly, yet it's not considered "abuse" (or, to use his favorite word on Wikipeia, "vandalism")? What makes it fair that when one attempts to remove these petty, silly, unsubstantiated edits of his, that these are not allowed to stand? Do I really need to declare arbitration simply because I'm standing up for the rights of these User accounts, regardless of who may or may not be behind them? Is this one of those "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" scenarios, or am I wasting my time here?

Now...as for his user talk page. I go after that one with repeated reverts because Chadbryant is constantly removing new remarks on there placed there by Wikipedia admins. See his two blocks for the 3RR rule as a good example. I also placed comments on there remarking on how he should leave User pages alone and stop adding in the nonsensical information to the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article that he had already been told months back to leave out. He, of course, being the lovely person that he is, immediately deletes these remarks. So tell me -- what's wrong with this picture? How much leeway does Wikipedia give in one's own talk page, especially when it comes to on-topic, verifiable, and substantiated remarks from admins and users alike/

As for everything else? Well, I think a check of his special contributions page would pretty much explain away a lot of that. Chad is repeatedly reverting articles and claiming "vandalism" to justify his behavior -- yet very, VERY few cases of vandalism (if any at all) have existed for him to be justified. He uses "vandalism" in such an abiguous sense that not even Albert Einstein himself could figure out all the necessary explanations for their usage. Clearly he has -- and continues to -- exploit/exploited the Wikipedia definition and template of "vandalism" for his own selfish and petty wants and gains. I note the Stannie Get Your Gun entry and the whole sad, pathetic, stupid revert war over the Trivia entry as a good example of this. The only reason Chad would revert was because the original addition was placed there by a poster that he hated.

You really need to stop listening to Chad and helping him to paint himself as the victim. I'm more than willing to reach an agreement here -- but your behavior simply doesn't help. You immediately jump in and block me as a sockpuppet, or as a vandal, or some other stupid bullshit like that without giving me half the opportunity you give him. This is either biasedness on your part or simply a stupid move, because as a Wikipedia administrator (or one who appears to think himself as one) you should attempt to remain as neutral as possible. It's moves like yours which have Wikipedia as such a joke among Internet users. Either allow me to continue, chat with me on the issue, or don't do anything at all, but you simply can't have it both ways. Chad is not the victim here -- indeed, in the majority of these cases, he is the aggressor. Which is something I would both hope and expect you in a position that you have placed yourself into to understand. Sure, he and I hate each other, but for Chad it goes way beyond hate. He has a history of doing whatever it takes to suit his own purposes and beliefs (see the KTVX entry as a good example) and when trouble starts he is the one who tries to make himself the victim. Chad is no different than those birds who will try to feign injury to lead predators away from the scent of their young, except those birds at least do it for all the right reasons.

Do whatever you will, but as long as you continue to keep your eyes half-closed like this, we really aren't going to get anywhere in this matter. I hope you understand. I may hate the guy, but I can't allow his bullshit to stink up all of Wikipedia. Zippity Doo Dah 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I have just returned to find my User page vandalised by Chadbryant with his insipid sockpuppet accusation. Do you see what I mean, now? Who or what told him that he could put that there besides himself? How am I supposed to calm down -- as you suggest -- with that idiot running around doing stupid crap like that? If you are going to chastize me for my behavior and alleged sockpuppetry, you should also make sure that Chadbryant knows this cannot continue. Really, what else am I supposed to do? I remove the sockpuppet accusation, he puts it back in. Guy's a real dick, dude. Zippity Doo Dah 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, your pal TenOfAllTrades has banned the Zippity Doo Dah account. So, I'd love to discuss this further with you, but it'd just be from yet another sockpuppet forced out of creation as a result of someone like him having banned the other accounts without waiting for an explanation. I mean, you can go ahead and respond on here if you want, and I'll be glad to reply through a sockpuppet, but it seems like nothing is going to be done until a) arbitration is done or b) your fellow Wikipedi administrators stop acting like a bunch of dicks. TwelveOfAllTrades 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I blocked User:Zippity Doo Dah, User:ElevenOfAllTrades, and User:TwelveOfAllTrades indefinitely as sockpuppet accounts being used to evade blocks. (Not to mention various gross violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:DICK, etc.) If you think one of them needs to be unblocked for discussion purposes, do so at your discretion. (Please keep an eye on any such account.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So I see you blocked my "Zing Zing" account. Does this mean you aren't interested in discussing the subject of Chadbryant? I don't blame you -- he is, after all, a fat, bloated, ignorant, homosexual sociopath with numerous mental and emotional problems -- however, you seemed to want to open a dialogue based on the interactions between he and I. Does the blocking of Zing Zing mean you have changed your mind? Deathen Taxes 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have officially requested arbitration against Chadbryant. Please see WP:RFAR for the relevant discussion. Deathen Taxes 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Me again. I read the comments you left on my talk page; they were both inciteful and relevant. Thank you for your input regarding this matter. One problem I have in reporting Chad's violation of policies is that it's difficult to link to Wikipedia pages internally without screwing up the link; for example, I have trouble linking to Special Contributions pages. That sort of thing. Another problem is I am quite sure that his repeated reverts with the excuse of "vandalism" is indeed a violation of Wikipedia policy (or at the very least a manipulation of it) given his extensive use of it for the reason of his revertings; however, I am still not completely sure how to put it into words and leave it in as an explanation that would not necessarily be airtight, but at least be understandable and able to be read and perused by Wikipedia administrators with little or no trouble.
Essentially, the problem(s) is/are twofold: One, I'm sick and tired of his repeated sockpuppet template additions. Whether or not the user account(s) is/are a/sockpuppet(s) does not matter. The issue in question here is his almost gleeful additions to User accounts regarding this matter. He seems to jump the gun; he in no way is an administrator and thus cannot see IPs. He cannot tell "who is who," if you will, and yet he seems to take it upon himself to armchair his way into the Wikipedia adminstrator by making these vandalistic behaviors at his whim. For one thing, he does not use any warning templates OF ANY KIND on talk pages -- he jumps right to the user page and places the "DinkSock" template on the page. When this is removed, he edits it, reverts it, and gives the excuse of "vandalism." And yes, I know he's misused "vandalism" but given how many times he's done this, I believe I can successfully use it in describing his behavior.
The other problem is I'm tired of his blatant violation (or at least manipulation) of the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism." This is not some abiguous term that Homeland Security is using. This is the Wikipedia definition that Chad is repeatedly advancing to suit his own needs; it seems as if he is using not the Wikipedia interpretation of it, but his own. It is one thing if an article is blatantly vandalised where even a half-blind Wikipedia administrator who speaks English as a second language can see that there's vandalism. But it's entirely another issue when there is no vandalism to begin with. See Stannie Get Your Gun for an example of this (he was blocked for 24 hours because of that one). In point of fact, in VERY FEW occassions has Chad even given reason for stating "vandalism." In other words, he doesn't revert and list "This was vandalism because blah blah blah." Not on the talk page or in the Edit summary either. He simply reverts (r/v) and puts "vandalism". Let's face it, that's just stupid. If you and I met in a bar and I said that I hated you and walked away, without giving you any reason that might let you know why, wouldn't you find yourself a bit confused and frustrated? Such is the result of Chadbryant's rather flimsy use of the "vandalism" definition on Wikipedia. I hope this clears things up a bit more. See you on the arbitration side, I guess! Deathen Taxes 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What Do Think?[edit]

I saw user "homograph" today. What do you think? WP:U vio?(some kind of attack on homosexuals or something). I doubt it, but i'm not sure, so I'll leave it to you. karmafist 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, homo- can be used in many legitimate contexts. -- Curps 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I am "homograph." I did not mean to confuse anyone. The term is used in Language Arts to describe a word that is spelled the same and has different meanings (I am an elementary school teacher). It merely descibes my first name which is a homograph. If is it offensive, I will gladly change it.
I'd say it's not a problem. If you think it necessary you could put the above explanation on your user page. -- Curps 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.

Ummm....?[edit]

Curps why did you block Arbitrarily Blocked? That was a sockpuppet of Deathen Taxes created as a result of Rhobite blockiing Deathen Taxes. Since Deathen Taxes has an ongoing arbitration dispute, which was signed under that account, being blocked would make it rather difficult to continue within that arbitration.

You know the most ironic part? You blocked Arbitrarily Blocked as I was writing to your talk page under his account.

So, to recap:

  • 1. Deathen Taxes requests arbitration
  • 2. Rhobite blocks Deathen Taxes
  • 3. Arbitrarily Blocked created to continue arbitration until such time as Rhobite takes his medication
  • 4. Årbitrarily Blocked posts to your talk page explaining the reason for the account and the subsequent handle
  • 5. You block Arbitrarily Blocked as the talk is being posted
  • 6. The Mayans turn out to be right and the world ends in 2012 with this shit still going on.
So...um...is Deathen Taxes still blocked, or has Rhobite been put on the naughty stool finally? What the hell is going on here, Curps? Answer on here or on the twenty or so other talk pages, but please give me a response. Oh Good Grief 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the user page rvv. And I shall take this opportunity to thank you for all your anti-vandalism work. Thank you! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your warnings...[edit]

Please sign your warnings. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Curps, you blocked my IP for greeting new users (Something that SCZenz, Musical Linguist, and HappyCamper all said I was welcome to do. I left a few messages on both the IP page and my regular talk page...both of which you didn't reply to although I happen to know that you were online. From there I tried to get your attention by trailing banners of text from my edits by using the user summary, which probably wasn't the best approach for it got my talk page blocked. I eventually called my IP provider and they gave me a new IP...and while it is against wiki policy to do such things I hope it will be forgiven. Anyway, I would like it if you didn't block me again, and leave me alone in the future. Thank you, Chooserr

We had a couple of disruptive users/vandals just minutes before you that were rapidly adding a flurry of welcome messages to new user pages and were using that to disguise some bad edits (bogus "you've been blocked messages" etc). See Polysciwantacracker (talk · contribs) and You got that right mister (talk · contribs). I saw an anon IP doing the same thing, and what's more it was signing its edits with your username, and so I believed it was part of the same trend. You also posted an entirely bogus block message to User:The Devil Made Me do IT who is now demanding an explanation from you. Sorry if you were blocked in error, but perhaps you could have done those edits under your username if you chose to sign them with your username. By the way, we're getting many thousands of new users every day, far too many to send welcome messages to them all, and many of which never make any contributions at all... so I'm not sure if it serves much purpose to do large numbers of welcome messages to users registered minutes earlier who haven't made their first edit yet. -- Curps 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please unblock Chooserr/71.129.72.3 as there does not seem to have been anything wrong with what was being posted, and a great deal wrong with admin behavior in reacting to it. --24.221.8.253 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(copy of what I just posted to User_talk:Chooserr#Block): Perhaps, Curps, you could stop making irrational decisions. It never hurts to welcome people. It hurts the community a lot to punish people who are doing no wrong, then blame them for doing what they think is right to cover up your mistake. --24.221.8.253 06:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. The block was entirely reasonable. -- Curps 07:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
False. It was unreasoned and therefore unreasonable. You sprayed your fire and hit innocent people. Get over yourself and go apologize for real. --24.221.8.253 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are not addressing the issues or providing any counter-arguments. And note 71.129.72.3's very disruptive post-block behavior. -- Curps 07:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
"not addressing the issues"? I've done nothing but, and you've run around in circles avoiding your culpability. And I've already told you that your demonization of Chooserr's response to your mistreatment of him is heinous and venal. But thanks for keeping it up. The RFC will love that. Good night. Argue with yourself. You might just win at that. --24.221.8.253 08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Further discussion (and more details) are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again. -- Curps 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Become answerable via email for your blocks or have a future RFC. To me your behaviour is unacceptable. silsor 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this is completely unrelated to the Chooserr situation. The timing is a coincidence. silsor 08:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User:71.129.72.3[edit]

See User talk:71.129.72.3 for an explanation of why the block was done. I've unblocked now, but his post-block behavior isn't really a good sign though. -- Curps 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you handled that civily and explained it well. It seems a shame, because I'm pretty sure I've seen him make good edits (though I can't exactly remember if this is true). What really gets me is he tried to post to my talk page on his new ip as somebody else....it just seems kinda sneaky. Should I block that one? Thanks for explaining it now, by the way... -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Buncha tin-star renta-cops rationalizing your shoot-first attitudes and blaming your victims for screaming in pain. Curps' "explanation" was a whitewash. What Chooserr deserved was a grovelling apology, not a haughty backhanded dismissal. I'm behind Silsor. Someone should be showing cause why they should not be stripped of sysop status over this. This is seriously not a "good sign". --24.221.8.253 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The block was entirely reasonable. Take it to WP:AN/I if you have some opinion to express. -- Curps 07:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Further discussion (and more details) are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again. -- Curps 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppet alerts[edit]

Why did you remove the meatpuppet alerts? These were users who visited/joined specifically to vote on particular AFD discussions, which is meatpuppetry. Firebug 09:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this meaning of "meatpuppet" is standard or understood by most Wikipedia users (it didn't ring a bell for me). In any case, the place to put such a notice would probably be within the AfD discussions themselves, since it's unlikely that the closing admin will take the trouble to visit the user page of each voting user, although they might check the length of their contribution history. Maybe it would be helpful to get more community feedback on the meatpuppet template before applying it widely, since you've only created it just now and there hasn't been time to get reactions. -- Curps 09:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I posted it on Talk:Sockpuppet and on VP policy. Firebug 18:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well OK then, thanks for clarifying. -- Curps 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

request[edit]

Could your bot fix the unicode at List of Greek words with English derivatives? Thanks :) +MATIA 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very quick response! :) It seems that it doesn't change some polytonic greek chars, like . And I'm more curious about the way it works - is it Perl, python, something else? Is there a page where I can read more about your bot apart from it's User page? +MATIA 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this revert?[edit]

What's the deal with [this revert], which happened less than I minute after I made a change adding the POV-check template to the article? 65.87.249.137 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that mainstream opinion concurs in considering them a Christian denomination. Sure, there are some who consider various denominations such as Mormons to not be a Christian denomination, and you can even find some Protestants who consider the Catholic Church to not be a Christian church. However, mainstream opinion is quite broadly accepting of most denominations, and our articles should neutrally reflect that, rather than personal theological beliefs of any particular contributor. POV notices should be justified in the talk page, and you haven't done so. -- Curps 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch[edit]

nice user page :) it says you blocked this account. is that the only sock puppet of Daniel Brandt?? 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Istanbul[edit]

would you be able to move the page back to İstanbul where it was originally at until it was moved on the 9th? thanks. sorry about that. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Essex[edit]

Hi does this look like a impostor on mighty Jimbo to you? I dunno but he is the one who created Jimbo Essex's views on wikipedia which you just deleted thankfully. Might be worth checking out :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also User:Jimbo Essex/Example of Patent Nonsense. A brand new account created solely for pranks, with the edit summary comment "testing speed of response to blatent vandalism". I blocked. -- Curps 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment/Question[edit]

Dear Curps,

I would like to be serious here for a moment, and ask you why you have to be so jumpy with the trigger finger and block me just because the name is a bit unusual? I've had a couple of them in the past (I know-sockpuppet admission) that I was going to make some serious contributions with, but I was blocked before I could make a single edit. I don't wish to tell you which ones they were, but I assure you they didn't have swearing in them and they didn't insult you. So I don't see the problem here. Thanks for hearing me out and please get back to me.Boring Guy With Boring Username 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to answer the question of why a specific username was blocked if you don't mention which username it was (or usernames, since you mention there's more than one). -- Curps 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

Hi - I recently applied an indefinite block on User:Edwin HJ for userpage vandalism and attacks on User:Quadell. I am new at this and would appreciate it if you would review the situation and let me know/correct any errors in my action. Thanks, Vsmith 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. - Akamad 09:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

user page "vandalism" at User:Rebelguys2[edit]

Hey, you just recently reverted my changes to User:Rebelguys2. I would encourage you to look at the content of the edit and just know that Rebelguys2 and I are close friends. I am not going to re-revert the edit, and I know you were just being cautious, as we should be with user page by users other than the owner. I was just fleshing out his joke a little more, that's all. Thanks! -Scm83x 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the revert, I think! ;) -Rebelguys2 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Imposter[edit]

Thanks for catching my double! I had to look twice, and then again when I looked at my watchlist...very strange! I wonder what caused someone to start something like that...odd. Rx StrangeLove 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism watch[edit]

Good morning, Curps. You recently added {{test1}} to user:156.63.253.3's Talk page. Given the persistent and recurring history of vandalism from this particular IP, I think you were giving this vandal the benefit of doubt which he/she no longer deserves. The vandalism began again almost as soon as the last block ended. The pattern of edits made by this particular vandal does not appear to be the kinds of tests coming from a dynamic IP. This appears to me to be one person who is just refusing to learn. I hope to be proven wrong and would ask you to join the vandalism watch on this IP. I've added a table at the top of the user's Talk page to record the results of the reviews of contribution history. Any observations you have would be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing this out, I'll watch this IP more closely from now on. -- Curps 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)