User talk:Momo san/Archive 4

Query regarding IP talk page format

Hello. Could you help me understand your reasoning for edits like this to IP talk pages? The layout used appears to be at odds with the standardized format recommended at WP:UTM and WP:UW. Thank you for your time, — Kralizec! (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the way I have done it is if there are old messages on an IP talk page from like years ago, i'll clean it up and put the {{older}} tag on it. I never knew that you could just have an archive box on the page and link back to it. although the "older" template says that the old warnings and notices are in the page history, they could just go in there. If you want, I can revert back to the other version. I can do that right now. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong per se with the way you have been doing it, however the method recommended at WP:UTM/WP:UM is widely accepted because a lot of people worked hard to build a robust, consensus-driven solution for the issue at hand. Personally I do not care for {{older}} because it is just a redirect to the standardized {{s/wnote}} that is supposed to be substituted anyway. Likewise, when archiving old warnings into the page history, it is recommended that you leave a link (hence why I use {{Archive box collapsible}}, like here). Speaking as an admin who processes AIV requests on a daily basis, while I do not follow the recommended format to a "T" (I think the numbered layout takes too much time so I skip it, likewise I put the "Warnings" header at a level-one section instead of the suggested level-two), the standardized format does serve the needs of me and other blocking admins quite well. Please let me know if you have any issues or questions, and thanks again for your time and consideration. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Page protection

Thanks for requesting a full protection as it was needed at the moment. I am not sure how long the dispute may continue, but it looks like we have lots of Jackson fans who regardless what his true sales represents want to see their favorite artist at the top of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed- and what a mess it is. Make sure to point me at the discussion if you hear any fallout from my protection of the talk and article pages at the same time. tedder (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes i'll do that or if someone else does it first. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please could you let me know what is happening; as hopefully you'll see from the talk page, I have been doing my utmost to keep the debate reasonable, and to work towards consensus. I don't know the details of the SPI, and I do understand that it might be necessary to protect it for a short time - but please keep me in the loop, as I do intend to continue to mediate and ultimately help resolve this dispute. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ANI report about an IP vandal

Hello Momusufan. Do you know of any Disney-related articles that were vandalized other than Scooby Doo? I was looking at WP:Long term abuse/Bambifan101 and trying to see if this is the same guy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no other Disney releated articles were vandalised. But based on behavior evidence, it's either him or a meatpuppet recruited to help him. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out in reverting Nangparbat. :) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Momo san ^Gespräch 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work on helping control vandalism. Ford Power Stroke engine is now cleaner.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the vandalsim of Location of atlantis

Hi, I would like to know why did you undo the Location of Atlantis back to BOLT machine. the changes made by me were aproved by the moderator and are legit. thanks --Xellas (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have committed a 3RR violation at the article. You say it was approved by another admin, please provide evidence for that. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I have committed a 3RR? I have made changes with references. yes it was undo by the automatic clueBot and then Dougweller undo it to my changes and telling me that sometimes the machine does that. I can't find that message but it was around 1-3 a clock 8/22/09.

My input was all referenced and no one commented on it. I am sorry but you have violated the WP rules. bc you didn't explain to me where did I committed a 3RR? I deleted a huge junk of Sarmast passage bc it was to long and to detailed and to technical, while other theories are short and mostly use one paragraph. Also I divided the Malta Sicily section as they belong to 2 different groups. They have nothing in common. Furthermore, I delted the sentence where it suggest that Maltese people originated from Iberia. Also, the introduction paragraph was formulated in such away that suggested that Spain is the Location of Atlantis. It wasn't referenced. Plato stated ATLANTIS PELAGOS (Atlantis Sea!!!) Now, if he was referring to Atlantic Ocean or not we don't know but we can't put that on the intro, BC it becomes a conflict of interest. I also entered the people that helped bring the story down to us, Solon, Dropides, Critias and Plato. And everything was referenced. You guys didn't even read the stuff. you have the right to question everything that an WP editor does but you can't undo them only bc you CAN!!

I am waiting for an answer Xellas (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a content dispute, removing sourced material and not gaining consensus on the talk page. The edit history shows you and the IP violated 3RR. And don't say I violated any rules because you didn't prove that claim. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No I am not in dispute, bc the other person is not talking, just playin around and anduing things without explaning. I supsect you're the person, nevertheless, I am not sure so I am not going to accuse you of something that I have no facts. Nevertheless, You undued my work without explanations!!! That's the proof. I am an editor and I have the right to change things if I feel they are not cited or referenced, as well I have something to add. Now, bc you guys have a conflict of interest, bc you want to suport a certain theory that's in vialotion of the rules. The WP rules state that you can;t undue someone work without reasons and without comenting on it, you have to give details and prove that I commited a 3RR. --Xellas (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to undue the article to it's previews version and I would like from you to check it out and I will be happy for you to comment on each particular changes. If you reason with me and pinpoint where exactly things don't fit or there is not enough evidence I will be more than happy to solve the problem and end the dispute. --Xellas (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.230.5.178

In AIV you said it traced back to Phoenix instead of Atlanta[1], but when I do a Whois, it comes to the same Cox Atlanta as the rest[2]. His usual 68 is 68.220.x rather than 68.230.x, but if its going back to Phoenix instead of Atlanta, then it may be a false positive. I was triggered by the Whois I did saying Atlanta and his posted here[3], when he supposedly has never been blocked or had an account. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When looking up whois, you should always refer to the bottom listing with the tight IP range. The Company is based in Atlanta but the IP pool does not. this whois page may be a bit easier to understand, the IP did resolve on that page as ip68-230-5-178.ph.ph.cox.net, PH stands for Phoenix indicating which pool it belongs to. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So confusing...if its in Phoenix, though, its unlikely to be him, as he's never travelled west (as far as I know), though his question still remains rather odd. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As another update, Bambifan101 did end up hitting again shortly after this from another IP that was from his usual range, so I removed the tag from this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats pretty weird, although this one was really him this time. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Shared vs. non-shared IPs - ref 65.25.178.59

I reverted a change on this topic. All hail, fellow vandal fighter, and greetings! The PTR for the IP in question is not shared. It also (IMO) does fit the category of IPs used for vandalism. Pardon if you disagree, please let me know if you do, and apologies in advance. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you notice the edit history, it possibly looks shared as it belongs to a cable company. An IP of that nature is usually shared with an entire neighborhood and doesn't get changed very often except in a few cases. Momo san ^Gespräch 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree (speaking as CTO of a Technology Consulting company, as well as a 30-year IT networking person) - that's clearly the IP of a cable modem. It is not a proxy, and not shared by more than one cable router. It can be reassigned, depending upon the DHCP policies of the cable company. To reiterate, it absolutely is not shared with an entire neighborhood. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The edit summary, in this case, substantiates the warnings on the talk page. Regardless, what an IP edits is only an indicator of # of users, and not a strong one. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well in the past, connections were shared with your neighbors, that appears to have changed today. So it looks like that cable modem has had that IP for months then and it might be the work of just one person. I'm just trying to understand it better, I know that with DSL, your IP changes every time you reset your modem. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for Tilliego‎

Thanks for helping out with User:Tilliego‎. I should've just blocked her as a sock, but I was being AGFish and filed the SPI instead. tedder (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, but at least the SPI confirmed the sock and another one too. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah- several good things. The other account came "free" (no edits made), and this one gave us some new behavior to follow. tedder (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

flip tricks

This is the 6th time I have tried to clean up the Flip tricks section and cite references only to have it be reversed.69.171.163.36 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Explain This edit? You blanked most of the article, you can't just blank out contents of the article you feel shouldn't be there, thats what the Talk page is for, to get other editor's input. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

81.134.13.214

[4] I'd be interested to know the source of the evidence for this, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On this page, the IP resolves to that school after putting it into a google search. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I forget about sampspade. See also Template talk:Anontools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re [5]

I am not sure that is an "open proxy". It may be a proxy (by my findings, confirmed by others) but not an open one. We try to indef block all the open proxies we can find, so that's why I wanted to check. Thanks for your work, and happy editing! Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know the Open Proxy was abusing the talk page at that point, but once it got blocked, he ditched it and moved on to another proxy. Thats when I decided to withdraw the report. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What I was telling you, was that it is not an open proxy. :-) Killiondude (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tots TV

Wasn't the edit by 70.146.227.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fundamentally a spelling correction? Even if he is a sock, that wasn't really worth reverting.... TheFeds 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Bambifan101 and he is banned, Banned users may not edit Wikipedia for any reason. Please read WP:BAN

How about listing him at WP:SPI? There's a long file on Bambifan101; if you've got evidence, it should be a quick block. TheFeds 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to AIV as all his IP socks are passing the WP:DUCK test per say. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi, just to let you know I reported that user as being a suspected sockpuppet of Bambifan01 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101) --5 albert square (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for doing that. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Two down, one to go

I just left word with J. Delanoy regarding that third, unblocked BellSouth range. I believe I may have successfully blocked the range, but I don't have checkuser privileges and so it may not actually be blocked. I'm hoping that he'll double-check and properly block the range if necessary and that ought to do it for Bambifan101 once and for all. That evil little freak has been more trouble than he's worth. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Block log and it appears you blocked the range correctly, says it's blocked for one year. If there happens to be another range, i'll let you know. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

for your help in my request for protection. don't know why, but i was finding it a little tricky, then my computer froze. when i came back to fix it, you had already taken care of the issue! --216.244.65.118 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis Granderson's Yankees Number

The the number should appear as two dashes until it is revealed by the Yankees. Girardi had stated during the 2009 World Series Game 6 post game he would consider a switch to # 28 for himself.--Subman758 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your work with IP talk pages. Enigmamsg 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)