User talk:Momo san/1st Archive

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


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your anti-vandalism work at wikipedia. Keep it up! James, La gloria è a dio 03:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You :) Momusufan 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You earned it:)--SJP 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
DO you have a IRC client? There is a good IRC recent changes channel on IRC.--Sir James Paul 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your congrats! It's a nice feeling to be asked to do something :). ck lostsword T C 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go - a brief protection should deter them. ck lostsword T C 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Momusufan 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Hey, you recently left a message on user - If you find a vandal, please use a template to warn them. Here is the wiki page for vandalism- . Also, since the user had a final warning, you can report him to . This way they will get blocked for their disruptions. Note- I have already reported that user, he has now a 3 month block. HIt me up on my talk page if you need anything. Warrush 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do notice some users say that they have reported the vandal on their talk pages, so I kind of took up doing that sometimes, and yes I am aware of using warn templates when they commit vandalism or another offense. Momusufan 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, somebody's a persistent little devil. And finally blocked! Good job reverting those edits. —Travistalk 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Vandal Fighter

You are becoming quite a good vandal fighter. You are fast for a new wikipedian and you are accurate. keep it up. Cheers!--†Sir James Paul† 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's all in a days work. lol Momusufan 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I've reported him and the other sockpuppet, Richard neer at ANI. Both should hopefully be shut down soon. :) -Ebyabe 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, they pretty much always get indef blocked. But sadly, he never seems to tire of creating new ones. But I've appointed myself official Ron liebman sockpuppet watcher, so as fast as he creates them, I report them and they get blocked. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. :) -Ebyabe 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to keep certain people away. Momusufan 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Ron Liebman Defense Cadre. One of these days, I might send an e-mail to the actual SABR member of that name and tell him that someone is taking his name in vain. That might backfire if it really is him. That's why I haven't done it yet. Baseball Bugs 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent the actual Ron Liebman a note just now, alerting him to this constant vandalism by his impostor. I'll let you know what happens. I am not acquainted with the actual Mr. Liebman, but I might be soon. :) Baseball Bugs 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's to wondering what he will say. Momusufan 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reported that new one to Ebyabe, who has turned it over to an admin for attention. That one guy is bizarre. Baseball Bugs 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be from New York City as he is operating out of the New York Public Library -->[1] "A vandal operating primarily out of the New York City public library open computer terminals, this vandal has impersonated members of baseball statistics organizations and inserted unsourced and false information into numerous baseball-related articles. Case primarily known as Ron liebman (talk · contribs) but real name unknown." Momusufan 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just remember not to let Ron and his sockpuppets get to you. He's made all sorts of snide comments to me and I just ignore them, considering the source. I refuse to descend to that level, so's I can maintain the moral high-ground, doncha know. I mean, I could comment on what I think his issues are, but that wouldn't be civil. Comprendes-voulez-vouz? :) -Ebyabe 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It's better to ignore such people anyway and not show how you really feel. Momusufan 19:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Yo. That guy vandalizing the Brian Mcleod page, I made a case about him. See Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/‎ if you'd like to help. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears he's already blocked now. Momusufan 02:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Need some help dealing with possible Roitr Sockpuppet Skafult who continuously reverts redirects towards redundant and erroneous articles. Aldis90 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

talk page vandal

thank you for fixing my talk page from that vandal. Until(1 == 2) 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Team colors

I received your message after I made the change to Reggie Jackson, so please don't think I was ignoring you. How is the practice for gaining a consensus? With Reggie - if you look at his info box, you will see that he played more years with the A's than the Yankees and put up better stats while winning more World Series titles. I think that is a pretty solid argument for A's colors there - especially since he is already shown with a Yankee cap, which would thus be a good split for both franchises. Also, if you read the article, you will see that Reggie originally intended to wear an A's cap on his Hall of Fame plaque but switched to the Yankees only after the A's fired him from a coaching job in 1991. In Reggie's case, I think the argument is strongest for Oakland. Why shouldn't the consensus for change be from the other direction? Who is to decide the status quo?Pascack 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to the person involved with the article, I suppose he can help you. Momusufan 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

can you go to Reggie Jacksons and Jeff Nelson (baseball player)s talk page to vote what colors should go to the infobox, thanks--Yankees10 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

AIV Report

I know they're from different ISPs, but if you look at all their edits, there's a hige similarity between the two. The user could be using a proxy, or could be editing from somewhere else. He also vandalized another editor review. this one was of another user who dealt with, the first IP. I'm 99% sure it's the same person. mcr616 Speak! 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the admins can figure this whole thing out. Momusufan 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the rv, by the way. mcr616 Speak! 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated. This is for you.

mcr616 Speak! 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for fixing my block notice. It was the first time I used it and I got an unexpected result. Template fixed now. Best regards, Húsönd 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Momusufan 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Protection

No need, i've already added it. Look under Saving private ryan. Warrush 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have took yours off. Warrush 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it until after I added it. Thanks for noticing that. Momusufan 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that edit

I did not see the edit on your talk page in the contributions for User:Dominance. Since it was after final warning, had I seen it, I would have blocked him. As it was, while I was reconsidering, another administrator blocked him indefinitely, and I support the block completely. My apologies for missing what was done to your page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Least it's taken care of, thanks. Momusufan 03:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Onorem

Hey Momusufan, just to remind you, if the edits were not blatant vandalism, do not remove them, that decision will be made by the user who operates and maintains that user talk page and only that user alone. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A Tip . . . I Think

It seems that reverting the blanking of someone's talk page isn't acceptable as with User talk:GinaGenovese. I'm really not sure why; some admins have done it yet others say it's not acceptable anymore. And every time I've done it, I've gotten in trouble for it. -WarthogDemon 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's removed, it's still viewable in the talk page history anyway. Momusufan 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, precisely my point. Eh, just thought I'd give a tip. If I'm wrong then just discard my bad advice. I've figured out a solution to the problem: let someone else do it. :P Anyways, happy editing. ^_^ -WarthogDemon 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Morning Musume images

Hi there! I noticed you were reverting some modifications made by a few users. Note that fair use images of living personalities are considered to be replaceable, and deleted within 7 days of tagged. This is because it should be possible to fetch a free image of the same person. This person who is removing the images from the articles is not doing so in bad faith, but instead following our standards. -- ReyBrujo 03:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

At the same time at Morning Musume, he tried to put up a fair use image from another website. Momusufan 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk page protection

Thanks for the heads-up, I've protected the page now. Waggers 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: July 2007

Well I'm using it as experience...Just as there examples of DDR in schools, I'm using my own. I Don't see the problem.

Welcome back!

I think you're great!

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy destination

Can you please provide a reason in this AfD? It's currently blank. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:About User:Teddy.Coughlin

Yeah, I'll help watch his contributions and revert things that seem false and are unsourced. I hope he's blocked longer next time. ☆CharlesNguyễn 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image on Morning Musume article

Because of previous conflicts on H!P images, I think the Morning Musume and Junjun pictures are better off deleted. I don't really mind there being images and usually I just leave them until someone else comes and deletes them unless there's no copyright information. Disbanded groups are allowed to have images though because of the unlikely possibility of being able to get a free image of them as a group. ☆CharlesNguyễn 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet case: Miamiboyzinhere

We did see that in the talk page for Walt Disney World Resort ... the case will still go forward, as far as I can tell. Last night, the admins semi-protected all the affected Orlando articles, so that anonymous IPs could not edit them.

For now, we editors should give him a chance to explain his actions and why he thinks we should change consensus that has already been established. His behavior after that will probably dictate what happens beyond that. Thanks for the heads-up. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll alert the other power-users and admins who are following the case. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on sounding the alarm. At worst, back off and wait till the next block, then come back and fix the damage. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
He's blocked for 2 weeks thanks to my AIV report [2] but is 2 weeks good enough? Momusufan (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. Honestly, there's not much we can do except try to rise above the nonsense. Now that he's disabled for another couple of weeks, go ahead and clean up whatever you want to clean up, both in your talk page and in the articles you follow. The pattern of behavior will be noted, as admins do not like it when people blank pages to remove warnings. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Miamiboyzinhere

Please be careful and don't remove text from that users talk page (like you did here) and remember, he's allowed to remove what he wants from his page, just like you are entitled to do so on your talk page. -Rjd0060 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not vandalising it, he's asking to be unblocked. The page does not, therefore, merit protection. GBT/C 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Momusufan (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the IP address, which was apparently a Miamiboyzinhere sockpuppet, just got blocked by another admin for a week. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats good, but of course he may come back on another IP. since that IP tried to wikistalk me, can someone put semi-protection on my talk page? a week or more would be great. Momusufan (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to do it at this point. It was only one IP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I had put in a request at WP:RPP and it got accepted. Momusufan (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


The IP is blocked.   jj137 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Momusufan (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice team work!

One guy tags them, another supplies evidence, an admin blocks them, and you {{indefblock}} template maintenance them. I love it when it works in harmony. Keep up the good work, Igor Berger (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#3 more pages stalked by User:Breathtaker

Can you help with this... Breathtaker is just going to jump IPs again.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... he's moved on to who1975 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that. won't be easy until we can get someone to block the range. Momusufan (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. I;ve got a very pissed off 17 month old girl here who want's some attention from her Daddy.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The range has been blocked for a week ([3]). We'll see what happens. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Momusufan.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Momusufan (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:

Would you care to explain how do you know, and please source this comment you posted in this user's page? -- Alexf42 03:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this Mmbabies abuse report, you will know that they have contacted the Texas AG's office and the FBI. That should clear it up. Momusufan (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I read them. I was unfamiliar with the page. Still I don't see what adding your message to the user's talk page will accomplish. I will protect the page as you requested. Thanks. -- Alexf42 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, probably won't accomplish anything but yeah. Momusufan (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. I noticed this edit you made on that user's userpage. He's free to do whatever he likes (within reason) on his user page, so may I assume that edit was in error? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I must add that this is separate from the user's seemingly disruptive activities. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't advertising anything in a userpage againest wikipedia policy? refer to What I may not have on my userpage Advertising or promotion of a business or non-Wikipedia-related organization (such as purely commercial sites or referral links) is not allowed on userpages. Momusufan (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Debarted

haha, i'm in the process of typing on that! Ctjf83Talk 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to report that IP for 3RR violation, or do you want me to do it? I've never done it, so i'd have to read the directions...have u done it? Ctjf83Talk 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never reported anyone for a 3RR violation, here is the template to use:

== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~


now go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR, New reports go on the bottom of the page. Hope it helps you. Momusufan (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, fine I'll do it! I have the page requested to be semi-protected, so I'll see how that goes first Ctjf83Talk 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again :) Momusufan (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

eh, view the talk page again, the IP is calling you out Ctjf83Talk 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, :) Ctjf83Talk 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Epcot article

Hey there. Thanks for keeping an eye on the sock puppeteer. His information is correct, but the problem we keep having is that he doesn't get consensus. That said, the question of the infoboxes is a valid one. I've added something to this effect on the talk page, if you'd like to join in. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And he's popping these new IPs up left and right. I can hardly keep up. seicer | talk | contribs 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why he's doing this. It's like it will never end. I have to leave so I won't be able to keep track of him. Momusufan (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Update ... Bandamorales has been hit with an indefinite ban. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Momusufan (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for helping to revert the user's removal of the disputed license tags on all those images. He has some strange ideas about copyright for such a long time editor. --JD554 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing my little mistake at User talk: -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Momusufan (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No fair

Hey, you edit conflicted me...I wanted to report the new fair ;)Legotech·(t)·(c) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, it's ok. Momusufan (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
A sock might need cleaning.[4] -- SEWilco (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. But I didn't want to put anything there to tip him off. Momusufan (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV report

This looks way too complex for AIV ... I'd suggest taking this one to the sock page for a look. Blueboy96 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Momusufan (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing AfD tags

Hi. Regardless of who nominated an article for deletion, it's not a good idea to remove an AfD tag from an article actively undergoing a deletion debate, as you did here. Doing so may prevent interested contributors from knowing that such a debate is ongoing. If you have questions about this, please let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

College Hill (TV series) edits

U said ok but still reverted? Y ?
These edits RNT vandalisation. This removed a spam link. This edit added info on the upcoming 6th season as well as did page cleanup. I just dont understand. (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please talk to an Admin about this, I can't help you. Momusufan (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Y not? It was your revert. (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, other editors reverted your edits too, because they are not sourced and you provided no source. Please talk to User talk:C.Fred the one who blocked you and discuss it with him. Momusufan (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User pages

The convention is that one does not meddle with another user's user page. Certainly anything that is unacceptable in other namespaces, such as advertising, attack, copyvios, etc. is unacceptable on a user page. But this edit and this one were both little better than vandalism since there was nothing seriously objectionable in the pages' content. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowiki on spam IP's

Please dont place no wiki, such as this. these don't resolve to the corect domain and are used in search tracking thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it linked to the actual spam link, Didn't know what it was for. thanks for clearing it up. Momusufan (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam thanks you.. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Thankyou for reverting the vandalism on my userpage - much appreciated :-) Lradrama 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lradrama 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Momusufan. I saw your request at WP:RPP. I'm not an expert on sockpuppets, but my assumption is that sockpuppets ought to be blocked for as long as the sockmaster, provided there is good evidence. Do you know what the case is for the IP being a sock whose talk page you were proposing for protection? ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). He does not seem to have edited since December 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To know the case, go here: Long term abuse/Mmbabies. To see the list of sockpuppets, go here: List of Mmbabies sockpuppets. Momusufan (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see the logic of semi-protecting the page. However that would prevent the use of the IP address for editing Wikipedia, since he couldn't respond to any messages he might get. And there is no obvious time limit for how long the protection would be needed. So why would we not also give a long-term block to the IP? This becomes strange because we are not supposed to block IPs for a long time, since an unrelated person might happen to connect later and want to edit from that very address. Since this is an apparent paradox, I wonder if somebody has figured out what to do in such cases. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone who knows the case better would understand. I'm not suggesting to block the IP, Only protect it's talk page. But since the IP is dynamic, someone else who comes to wikipedia using that IP may edit on it. Momusufan (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


i am only using another accout besause some idoit got my schools ip address blocked and i only saw one interaction with iloveaustria87 i was a user long before i ever heard of iloveaustria87 at least one year and once again what does sock puppet mean Inspiron6m (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And how am I supposed to believe you? It's hard for me to believe a story like that. Momusufan (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont know how but i can tell u that my school ip address is i attend henrico county school jhon randolph tucker high school and am in grage 10 you could probally run a back trace of the ip address Inspiron6m (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Contributions for Inspiron600m, you will see that you edited User talk:Iloveaustria87 and that you maybe that user. Momusufan (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All i said was hi either greg sidney or tara because those are the 3 possible people that could be behind that accountInspiron6m (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then your account would be comprimised and it's gonna end up blocked anyway since you lost control of it. Momusufan (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean that i lost control of it and that it was compromised —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insprion6m (talkcontribs)

You let someone else use your account for malicous intent a violation of Wikipedia policy. Momusufan (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

no i didnt what evidenve made u think thatInspiron6m (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"All i said was hi either greg sidney or tara because those are the 3 possible people that could be behind that account, I think that speaks for itself. Momusufan (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant there are 3 possible people that could be behind the iloveaustria87 account Inspiron6m (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an admin will care, i'm done talking about this. Momusufan (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well one last question what do i need to do to get inspiron600m unblocked is there another and admin that could help meInspiron6m (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a sockpuppet account, the answer is more than likely "no". Momusufan (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

it is not a sock puppet account i cant be a sock puppet if the puppet master account was created after mineInspiron6m (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk to an admin about it, I highly doubt they will believe you. Momusufan (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

i thought u were an admin Inspiron6m (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, therefore I cannot help you, please talk to Jayron32, the admin that blocked you and discuss it with him, thank you. Momusufan (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

well i hope u become one your very good at what u do thanks any wayInspiron6m (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)