User talk:HalfShadow/Archive 1

IP block

I didn't block him for 24 hours. I blocked him for 48 hours. The user has very sporadic editing habits, and I think he's done for a while now. If he comes back and gives you problem, let me know asap and I'll deal with him. --Nishkid64 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but this happens to be on my watch list. The best way to deal with attacks like this are to ignore them. If you think an average of one per day are bad, you should take a look at CFIF (talk · contribs) who has several people attacking him in waves of ridiculous page moves and deletion attempts (and even successful deletions) along with nasty comments and threats. You should take pride in the fact that you've pissed someone off to the point where all they can do is resort to name calling! —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing messages from user talk pages

I just want to let you know that you are NOT supposed to remove messages from user talk pages. So, don't remove them from other people's user talk pages after a conversation is over, or even your own. The messages should stay here for recordkeeping. Thanks. --Nishkid64 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no harm done. I just wanted to remind you, because had I not known you, I would have warned you. --Nishkid64 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, when I respond to something, do I have to do it via your page, or will posting it on my page be enough? (I suppose whether or not you respond to this will be my answer) HalfShadow 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you should do both, because that way a record is kept on the other person's page and also on your page. --Nishkid64 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:IP is back

I don't think it's him. I did an IP address check on him, and this IP address is from Englewood, Colorado, while the guy who was previously attacking you was from London, England. I'll check this guy's edits though. --Nishkid64 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It's weird, it just seems to be those two edits and that's it. I'll see if he comes up as anyone from my end. *sigh* Bloody kids... HalfShadow 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

The only reason I gave the user the warning was because he wrote "St.Helens" and I associated that with spam. Well, it was my mistake, but thanks for clarifying that. --Nishkid64 21:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worse than a terrier when it comes to learning things. Part of it is that I literally can't not be helpful. If that makes sense. When it comes to information, there's very little I can't find. HalfShadow 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:MPOGD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MPOGD.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

MPOGD

In what way was the article deletion-worthy? Basically, what I'm asking here is what did I not put in the article that should have been there? Project rockstar mentions the site, so I thought an entry on it (even a stub) would be useful. It doesn't really matter to me as a whole, but if I'm going to put in my own entries, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. HalfShadow 23:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't assert what makes the subject notable -- there are 1000s of submissions of non-notable websites to Wikipedia each day, so if the article doesn't even claim that the subject is notable, it gets speedy-deleted. I've undeleted the article so you can add that information. I've replaced the speedy-deletion tags with a "proposed (slow) deletion" tag, so once you think the article shows the notability of the website, you can remove the Prod tag. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 00:01Z

So if I'd said something like 'this site contains one of the largest lists of multiplayer and on-line games available on the internet' or something to that effect, that would have worked? HalfShadow 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, any assertion would be good enough, but in practice, admins use judgement on the credibility/verifiability and interestingness of the assertion. For example, "HalfShadow is the king of France" is an assertion but not credible; "HalfShadow maintains the largest list of multi-colored socks sold in New York" is believable, but not interesting. So just using a superlative word wouldn't prevent speedy-deletion. On borderline cases you just have to complain loudly enough to push it to slower forms of deletion debates (prod and AFD). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 00:14Z

Well, I'm fairly certain it's at least a moderately valid point. The site is quite extensive. HalfShadow 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably won't be speedy-deleted now just because it was recently undeleted. However, you should still show notability/importance with references, to prevent it from being slow-deleted via Prod or AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 09:43Z

Thank you for attempting to verify the statement that "MPOG is one of the largest sites on the internet of its type," however, a personal blog-style site of an unknown game developer does not qualify as a reliable source. Please use references from something more in line with the reliable sources policy. Thanks! Leuko 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Clifford.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Clifford.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Made a bit of the mess of the Simpsons page

Nah, you did fine. :) If you're interested in fighting vandalism, or just curious about the methods and tools used, you could find more information at WP:REVERT, cleaning up vandalism, recent changes patrol, and the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Thanks for your help -- every little bit counts, that's why we have a wiki! Luna Santin 03:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The wiki's got a steep learning curve, but judging by the short time you've been here, I'd say you're doing pretty well. It all gets easier with time. You can also try the help desk or drop off a {{helpme}} tag if you run into any problems. Happy editing. Luna Santin 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back edits

Hi there Halfshadow.

When you are an administrator on Wikipedia, you get several functions at your disposal, one of which is to do rollback edits - see here for more information.

If you click the Diff button on Recent changes, it comes up with a screen, stating two separate revisions to an article, the current one, and the one previous to it. But another function, available only to administrators, is the ability to [rollback] any user's edits. This is explained here. It seems you are quite interested in vandalism reversion, so this is one of many things that is made easier when you are an administrator compared to a new user.

Don't worry though, we were all new users once, and, if we're believed to be good enough by the community, any user can become an administrator. I hope this helps you to understand. Bobo . 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halfshadow said: Oh, I see. I thought it was either some sort of shortcut I wasn't using or a mod/admin privilege. I can stop worrying about it, then.

There are certainly ways that can help you deal with vandalism, but otherwise, doing such things at that speed is something that can be achieved only by administrators or people with extremely fast fingers! Bobo . 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow said: There's just no call for it, you know? It's the equivalent of drawing moustaches and goatees on all the pictures in a book. Anyway it takes, what, a second to undo?

As you rightly say, there is no reason to want to commit vandalism to Wikipedia, and, indeed, it can be reverted on the spot - ie, as soon as it is discovered by another user, it can be rolled back to a previous version - even if there have been many versions saved since. Bobo . 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Rolling back edits

Hi there Halfshadow.

When you are an administrator on Wikipedia, you get several functions at your disposal, one of which is to do rollback edits - see here for more information.

If you click the Diff button on Recent changes, it comes up with a screen, stating two separate revisions to an article, the current one, and the one previous to it. But another function, available only to administrators, is the ability to [rollback] any user's edits. This is explained here. It seems you are quite interested in vandalism reversion, so this is one of many things that is made easier when you are an administrator compared to a new user.

Don't worry though, we were all new users once, and, if we're believed to be good enough by the community, any user can become an administrator. I hope this helps you to understand. Bobo . 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halfshadow said: Oh, I see. I thought it was either some sort of shortcut I wasn't using or a mod/admin privilege. I can stop worrying about it, then.

There are certainly ways that can help you deal with vandalism, but otherwise, doing such things at that speed is something that can be achieved only by administrators or people with extremely fast fingers! Bobo . 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow said: There's just no call for it, you know? It's the equivalent of drawing moustaches and goatees on all the pictures in a book. Anyway it takes, what, a second to undo?

As you rightly say, there is no reason to want to commit vandalism to Wikipedia, and, indeed, it can be reverted on the spot - ie, as soon as it is discovered by another user, it can be rolled back to a previous version - even if there have been many versions saved since. Bobo . 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Anon vandal

I agree. That one was especially nasty and needed a little tap on the shoulder. If you know a better way, please LMK. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The users still are able to edit their own page and ask for unblock. I don't mind unblocking the IP (and I have done in the past) if they ask nicely and promise not to do it again. Also, they could register. It's not a life support system, right? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Northwest Ordinance

Okay, cool. I also reported the IP to AIV.
Could I also remind you to sign your posts? Thanks. Cheers. -- Reaper X 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I noticed I hadn't but it had already auto-signed it. I'll unprotect the page in a bit, it's just so we don't have to revert it every minute or so. HalfShadow 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I would only really need to protect my page if I was constantly being attacked by vandalism. I am not, so I don't really think I need to protect the page. Anyway, there are bots and other users that can revert it in a snap, so there are no worries. Nishkid64 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well keep wondering. You seem to be doing well so far (I've check out your edits :-P), and this curiosity can only make you improve. Don't feel shy to ask me questions at any time. Nishkid64 01:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Do not remove the cool stuff I place on my user or talk pages without my authorization. Dragonball1986 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff is not "cool"; it's intentionally annoying, Dragonball1986 is being wilfully disruptive, and don't be a dick is a basic rule anywhere, which he might understand when he grows up a bit. I'm sympathetic to the idea of just yanking the damned thing, but editing someone's user or talk page without his permission is generally not a good idea. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow...no problem! I was totally sympathetic...it's just a bad precedent. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

Indeed. He's blocked now. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job reverting vandalism lately! --Fang Aili ^talk 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) . [reply]

Godzilla

Thanks for updating this - I missed a bit while trying to get rid of the "Reed is wrong - it's a dinosaur" "Sam is a fag - no way it's a dinosaur" nonsense. FreplySpang 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady T.I.P.

Why is she still messing with me?? I am no longer arguing with the girl, she's the one who still leaving me rude messages. Georgia Bird 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. Next time, sign your name. bibliomaniac15 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it's the same user. If they strike again, report them on WP:AIV. bibliomaniac15 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Appreciate It

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here's a little gift from all of the grateful Wikipedians that appreciate you righting the wrong seemingly everywhere. thanks Ganfon 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gratz HalfShadow on your first barnstar! I was going to give you one, but I decided to wait a little bit. Anyway, keep up the great work and vandal-fighting.

Nishkid64 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! No problem about the revert, you're welcome any time (any time I'm logged on to see it, that is). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies

Sorry, you're partially right, but the fact that the accounts first edit was to completely copy someone else's userpage, and then to vandalise using the "revert" summary, is classic long-term vandal behaviour, although perhaps I should assume more good faith. Mak (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:170.158.38.49 and User:170.158.38.50

I agree, these are likely IPs of the same school. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a "maybe school IP" template. Best, Gwernol 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please remember to subst.

Hello, HalfShadow, I would like to remind you to subst warning templates on user talk pages. You can do this by using {{subst:test2}} instead of {{test2}}. Thanks! --SonicChao 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HalfShadow. First, you can check who is an admin by looking at the list Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. That said any editor can legitimately leave a message such as the above, whether they are an admin or not. On the question of {{test}} templates, SonicChao is correct that you should always subst: them - see the instructions at Template:Test. Best, Gwernol 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question on Gwernol's Talk Page (Whoops Gwernol Beat Me to It)

Hi there HalfShadow. I saw your question on Gwernol's Talk Page. Adding the "subst:" tag makes sure that the version of the warning template you were using is the one that existed at that time. When you do not add the "subst:" tag it will be susceptible to change if the template is ever edited (ex. like when the template itself is vandalized). It is strongly recommended to practice "subst:" regularly on Wikipedia because of such cases.Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: (Whoops Gwernol Beat Me to It)Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Wilsoncruz

Re your message: Yes, I'm aware of standard procedure. If you look at the edit history of W. S. Gilbert, you will see I was reporting the accounts for being part of a coordinated attack against the FA. These accounts were specifically created to vandalize and would not heed any warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 00:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Unfortunately, some people think it's "fun" to try to screw up other people's work. Probably some kid with nothing better to do. Rather unfortunate. -- Gogo Dodo 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supervised Injection Sites

I don't know what consensus I need to change it, it seems to be me versus you, but I have website of the project on my side. Whose 'consensus' do i need to make the correct changes? The fact is they are known as "supervised" sites but they are incorrectly known as safe sites. Canadianehme 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Canadianehme[reply]

Safe injection sites and supervised injection sites refer to exactly the same thing, but calling it safe is just incorrect since it is refering to Insite and Insite calls themselves a supervised injection site. Canadianehme 20:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Canadianehme [reply]

Basilisk

Right, but (1) time varies in the Marvel Universe, and (2) we're not supposed to lift handbook info unnecessarily for copyright reasons (one encyclopedia can't copy another). Doczilla 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. So yes, if we were to leave in such a reference at all, it would certainly be yours which was based on a specific item of text rather than "years" which was based on either speculation or real world passage of time. Given the circumstances of the edit wars going on with the Basilisk article and Thor-related articles, I certainly understand your wanting to make sure it's clear where you got your info. Doczilla 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 24.232.114.240

Based on the contribution history and warnings it could very easily be the IP of that account. Better approach an admin about it and see what they can do.Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:POPart page

I suggest reading CSD criteria G1 again, especially the patent nonsense page that is linked. If You still think that the text meets the criteria don't hesitate to comment. Perhaps revisit also Wikipedia:User page. Thanks, feydey 21:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Franklin and Granny's Secret

I was just wondering where you saw the film under the title "Franklin and The Secret Of Turtle Lake" (by the way, per WP:MOS, "the" and "of" should not be capitalized). The French title is "Franklin et le trÃ©sor du lac", and IMDB mentions only two English-language titles, "Franklin and Granny's Secret" (which it says is the "informal English title") and "Franklin and the Turtle Lake Treasure" (which it says was a "working title", though it's actually the direct translation of the French title). A google search for Franklin and The Secret Of Turtle Lake" yields zero results. Esn 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry What?

I'm gonna have to ask you which article you're talking about, without that I can't really help you. Canadian-Bacon 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, in which case it was deleted because it had been voted for deletion as an Afd here and was a repost of deleted material. Canadian-Bacon 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:AN/I

Yes, there is a way: you can make a request for an IP check at Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. - Mike Rosoft 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account to be checked needs to have been used recently. I am only aware of User:Userbox and User:Revolution W. (Are there more?) - Mike Rosoft 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User_talk:61.199.43.116

sorry for not logging in, yes it was me editing my own account --Amin123 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

John Kerry

Sigh. I really should make better use of the preview button. -- Vary | Talk 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MPOGD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MPOGD.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECUâtalk 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

71.157.140.230

Yes, but if indeed the vandal does use rotating IPs, then blocking longer will only cause collateral damage. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

59.101.178.197

Greetings! Looks like I nailed him at exactly the same instant you left the message [1] -- not sure how, probably because I just happened to be watching RC for a minute then. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Keep it to yourself

Do you think that might be a bit harsh? Occasionally all editors have good views when it comes to inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, adding personal attacks in summaries, even if they are to vandals, is typically frowned upon. Don't feed the trolls, I guess. Logical2u_Talk 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image size

No, it's too large. If you take the 'px' thing out of the image thumb altogether, it auto-sizes it to 180px wide, not 300px so that's probably a good place to start. I chose 200px for that picture because it was 'easy', and looks much less clumsy. 86.148.127.202 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! --Nevhood 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had to do it quite a few times now myself. There's really no respect among these vandals. --Nevhood 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. The vandals will never achieve anything here. --Nevhood 02:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message on my talk page

Oh, thanks for letting me know. I thought it was used in the "inappropriate" manner. Thanks again. 72.67.21.73 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

For reverting the vandalsim on my page. Nice call on that vandal also. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too

Thanks for rv-ing that v to my user page! delldot talk 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my page as well! Real96 05:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest cough evar.

Congratulations. You've made me giggle.

I hereby award you this: :3

It's a kitty face. Pumeleon^T 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

it is ironic

whats worse, is that i actually lost a minute of my life having to read his paragraph for validity. im seriously dumber now. the_undertow ^talk 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV - User:John196920022001 not blocked

This editor has been regularly contributing since January 5, 2006. Please have a bit more respect for established editors even if they have somewhat long usernames. Also note that the numbers in his username are years, and not random numbers. -- Netsnipe âº 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Delete Tag on Yeah, I Figured That Much

Please keep in mind that after you put a speedy delete tag on an article, it is a good idea to inform the author of the page that it has been nominated. There are templates in the pink box that you can copy and paste to their talk page to let them know. This gives them the chance to contest it. If it isn't on their watch list, they might not find out for a while. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Smile

Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know

But it seemed like I should do it anyway. I'd hate for someone like that to see nothing happen and think that means they can get away with it if they have a good enough threat. African American and white people have both been sprotected, and User:Centrx did a short rangeblock, so hopefully that will dissuade them better. Natalie 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SandyCheeksInBikini3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SandyCheeksInBikini3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. âBkell (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuarterShadow's blanking

QuarterShadow blanked User talk:Turok 19. Normally, I would revert such vandalism, however I am unsure what to do here.

Thanks for trying to help squeeze the issues out. ;) CSP 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turok Socks

I'd take the socks to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. They may be able to find the underlying IP and issue a block to it.Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I compiled this for you: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Turok 1. That should help you out in regards to Checkuser. Hopefully there will be no need to lock the articles he's targeting.Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think you should file Turok on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Requests for IP check. This is more like a code A case.Â¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser procedure

Hi, I am a clerk assisting the Checkusers with their work. I just wanted to thank you for listing your case in the IP check section. I requested your original posting to be deleted. Good luck with your request! -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I am tired, it is almost 4 AM, and I screwed up a merge just before ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Them Turok socks

Question for you. Do you know why some of them are listed as socks of Turok 1 (talk · contribs) and others of Turok 19 (talk · contribs)? Might it not be easier to recode them all to one big (and sadly still growing) list? I'd be happy to help. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been done. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Romulus-dderidex.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Romulus-dderidex.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

talk page

Thanks for the catch on my talk page. I semiprotected the Parma article. The IP is coming back under different addresses, so blocks are going to be ineffective. Semiprotection solves the problem quite nicely. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Personal attack removed

I've removed an attack edit on your talk page by Every name is taken12345 (talk · contribs). Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re: That was maybe a bit too hard

I find that usually people vandalising are less likely to again after a short, sharp shock- I find an 'Only Warning' works on IP addresses best, as it forces them to create an account to edit again, hopefully if they're going to have to go to such effort to edit they'll stop vandalising and instead will contribute properly. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 22:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats also a good tactic, i suppose it all boils down to personal preferences. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your locator

Yeah, that was good. WHOIS is so convenient because it's on the bottom of the talk page, but when it's out of date it's really out of date. Natalie 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the devs would be the people to talk to about that. I don't really know who they are, though, or how to request a software feature. Natalie 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Phelps

He's a super creep. Have you ever read any of his websites? They're a really good snapshot of schizoid paranoia. Natalie 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

[[2]]

What is this guy up to? Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hes blocked now. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metalgearsolidportableops1001987489370419856hjkfacg hyuah

Tell me about it. I don't even know how to pronounce that last bit. Natalie 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

nazi apologist police states are wrong! ... kthnx!

The conversation was actually even funnier than that; I just didn't feel like putting warning templates on my own Talk page. The first line was originally from my talk page, and I pasted in the rest from User talk:24.27.18.25. Click through; you'll be entertained. --Dynaflow 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samjxx on WP:AIV

Ah, you stole my shot! I wanted to play spotter on him! LOL E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

67.158.110.194

I was wondering if you could help me figure out how to take care of this particular IP address. It resolves to an educational institution out of Claremont, New Hampshire and is credited with a quite a few incidents of vandalism --Amaraiel 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know your not. I was actually referred to you by Dynaflow because like you, I enjoy hunting vandals.

--Amaraiel 04:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

The only way you can tell for sure is using Checkuser, which is a special level of access only a handful of people have. Wikipedia actually logs the IP as well as the username for every edit. Its just that most of us (admins included) don't get to see it. In cases of serious disruption, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser to find out whether particular accounts are likely to be the same user. Note that this is an extreme action and is only done in severe cases. In particular where the fact that a user is a sockpuppet is obvious from their contribs (like with Woldemikael) there's no real need to run a checkuser. However in more complex cases it can be helpful (though its usefullness is limited if someone edits from multiple IPs - e.g. proxy servers). WjBscribe 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans

You and I appear to be simul-posting in this article to revert IP vandalism. SInce you're quicker than I am, I'll leave it to you. Eggishorn 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to have run off (for a few minutes, anyway). Eggishorn

Thank you

Thank you for the truth. --St.daniel ^Talk 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Random IP vandals

Mmm, I know there are no permanent blocks for IPs, and my school's proxy has a 6 month block which it deserves, but it just gets ridiculous at times. Thanks for your efforts though. --Martian.knight 04:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought, I have been sitting dormant for a while and had IP edited previously. The policy makes sense, although as you say, it is frustrating. I look forward to the possibility of working with you in the future. Thanks again. --Martian.knight 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of sock puppetry previously (with a different account), and a variety of other heinous wikicrimes. I never could work out wether or not the admin was serious or a rogue. Nonetheless I can only begin to imagine the mess they might cause. --Martian.knight 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, and I get accused of wasting my time on Wikipedia when I am bored. The worst I have had to deal with is minor Userpage vandalism and repeated removal of CSD tags. --Martian.knight 04:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of brute force attack would be no fun, but I have come across some rather warped yet subtle vandalism. Just little bits and pieces that give the entire article an entirely different meaning, almost undetectable. --Martian.knight 04:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been good having a bit of a chat, but I'll have to leave you to yourself for now. School finishes in about ten minutes, so I shall be heading for the train shortly. 'Til next time. --Martian.knight 05:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: God, I love being smart.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LittleEinsteinGldnLrgeSpot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LittleEinsteinGldnLrgeSpot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re. Warning a school ip...

I agree that the warning won't likely change a blessed thing as far as their behavior goes, however I'd rather go by the book and have a vandal stopped (at least temporarily via block) rather then just keep reverting their vandalism over and over again. PGWG 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA

Typically, users report names to WP:UAA under the "User-reported" header. Is there a reason you are placing reports on the WP:UAA/BOT page where bots file reports? Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The the "User-reported" line isn't supposed to be on the page that you're editing. It's for bots. The page you need to edit is WP:UAA, rather than WP:UAA/BOT. Leebo ^T/C 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot page is transcluded to the main UAA page. You've been editing the page for the bots to edit, but it seems to just be a misunderstanding. No harm done. Leebo ^T/C 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

Persistent bugger! -- Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re:68.251.145.199

Yeah, I think I encountered him before. I'm a fan of the show (its not just for kids), which is part of how I knew the additions were b.s., although I checked (by Google) just to be sure. And apparently I'm now a HalfShadow talk regular! Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Protection

Hmm...there have been 4 total vandalistic edits today from 3 seperate IPs. I'd say that warrants sprotection. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal

Sorry about that...I won't revert any more edits for the time being.--CyberGhostface 21:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Hannibal Lector

Sure, go ahead. (I've also been using those templates more frequently now. :) ) « ANIMUM » 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to unblock him ( a 3rr is a 3rr and he's guilty of that), but user:CyberGhostface did back right off when I warned him. HalfShadow 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think blocking Cyber is best now. He was already given a warning, and upon that ceased to even edit the article in the time that CJK proceded to revert with another editor and it was finally protected. I don'tk now, it just comes off like we slapped his wrists once, and then decided he needed the belt instead. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him. At issue here is (from WP:3RR) In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. However, CJK has been disruptive in other ways (and violated 3RR on another article), so this is not really unbalanced. In fact, since CJK got a twenty-four hour block as well, the unblock here probably makes things more fair. -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, HalfShadow. In the future I'll keep 1RR in mind and go to other editors for help.--CyberGhostface 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile Edit Summaries

Please do not leave hostile edit summaries such as this "It's interesting, but I don't recall at any point asking your opinion." [3] I was not giving an "opinion" I was giving an official warning regarding your conduct. Read WP:CIVIL and refrain from making further commentaries such as those mentioned in this comment. Good day.--Jersey Devil 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You may have missed this. Exploding Boy 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dogsbody

Hey, thanks for clarifying the term in question! I was really scratching my head with that one, ha ha! Just the same, as British slang, I don't think it has a place in an article about a US TV show, so I'd say my edit was a fair one. Thanks again, MArcane 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I appreciate it. I'm actually a fan of all things anglo, so I'm happy to pick up a new tidbit. Maybe it'll come in handy when my forthcoming Blackadder Netflix rentals start arriving! :) MArcane 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Not necessary for this case IMO since the user has been blocked, but I will delete it since it is redundant and the history shows only breaches of policy. If it is recreated, I will protect. ck lostsword•T•C 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hang on usertalk? Protected :) ck lostsword•T•C 17:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Nick ahearn for deletion

While tagging test pages for deletion, I noticed that you had beaten me to tagging Nick ahearn. However, you used the {{db-notable}} template, which doesn't exist. In that case, it would be better to use the {{db-bio}} template. Thanks, Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heads up your edit to that page would just get you another message on the next run, instead of using the URL use a inline link. I went ahead and fixed it [4] ^∆ 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg

This image is now orphaned, meaning it is not displayed on any main namespace articles. I recognize that it is linked, but this does not grant it non-orphaned status. I changed the image to be displayed in the article, where it is appropriate to do so. Since you've changed it back to a link, I've now orphaned the image. It will be deleted in seven days unless it is displayed in a main namespace article. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half, you had a very good idea. I even provided a "fair use" rationale on the image to keep it relevant. It seems the image police are out in force this week about a number of things.

Asgardian 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. HalfShadow 17:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I thought I was blanking a dummy on my user page. I'm sorry.--Victor falk 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts

Thanks for them! Thanks also for putting my user page on RFPP! Didn't expect to see it there! :) Acalamari 22:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a PROD notice

Hello. With a rather bizarre edit summary, an IP removed a PROD notice from Paul Mowatt. You promptly reinstated it.

I think you've confused PROD and AfD notices. Anyone can remove the former, for any reason or no reason. Other than in very tightly constrained circumstances, nobody can remove the latter.

Now that the IP has removed the PROD, anybody is welcome to send the article to AfD. I'll do so myself, if nobody beats me to it.

Incidentally, the IP seems a bit ruffled. He proceeded to embellish my user page. -- Hoary 01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Eh, don't bother.

The guy has just been blocked indef. Yay Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sasha Grey info

This is Sasha Grey I am asking nicely that you do not post my id, etc. again on wiki-look at my talk page for further info if you feel it's needed! ms.sashagrey@yahoo.com Madjabuds 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)sasha grey[reply]

I would like to point out to you that the source of the information that you used for Sasha's real name (in my opinion) violates the no original research rule and as a result cannot be used as a citation. Tabercil 05:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You're right. It was a different user who originally added the info and I'm posting a suitable warning on his talk page. Tabercil 05:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: user:Ioloroberts

I don't actually have any idea who this guy is. I don't know where this 'friend' thing came from; I've never heard of this guy before, and he's only existed a day as it is. I'm just saying I have no idea what he's talking about, that's all. HalfShadow 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that he's no friend. His first edit was vandalism, you reverted and warned him. Today he left a borderline personal attack/threat/uncivil comment on your page, which I reverted. I was trying to get him onto the straight and level... This is an experiment on my part. It might work, or he'll get blocked. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone leave the retard gate open again?

I really didn't understand that.--Sandahl 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Paul Mowatt

Remember him? You couldn't re-prod his article, but I could AfD it, which is what I've just now done. -- Hoary 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, and certainly didn't intend to dwell on the re-prodding. I thought that you might have a distinct opinion on the article. -- Hoary 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help and support regarding this guy. It was very much appreciated :D -- AngelOfSadness talk 13:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the reverts, much appreciated. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too!

One day, when I have the time, I'll ask you how you were able to localize and revert this vandalization as fast as you did. Meanwhile, I find it strange that for the first time today someone with, apparently, a political agenda of sorts has also vandalized the additions I had made to the page on Collaboration during World War II. Just wondering if there is a connection there. Thanks again. · Michel 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]