User talk:MrDarcy/Archive4

Back to current talk page ● To my user page

Vandalism only account

Hi again, we've got a vandalism only account here, and I'd like you to take care of it when you have a chance. Thanks again. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning - probably blockable, but he wasn't actually vandalizing existing articles so much as creating nonsense ones. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks of 193.219.28.146

Hi, have replied on my talk page, plus left a comment on ANI. Thanks/wangi 22:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

MrDarcy, After you reverted Stubaccas deletion of references on the Diarmuid O'Neill page, he has also taken it upon himself to delete the references from a more articles, again citing WP:RS and without any discussion or highlighting what exactly his problem is with the sources or the contents within the articles, here is Stubacca's recent edit history. How should I approach this?--Vintagekits 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for your help! JPatrickBedell 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Talk: Alpha Kappa Alpha

Could you please semi-protect this page? MyKungFu's sockpuppets again. Real96 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars, Episode IV

Sorry to bother you again, but check out this diff. This is an obvious sock of Starwars1955. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just out of curiosity: can I revert changes by this user all the live-long day without violating WP:3RR, since he has been blocked indefinitely, or should I just remain on the safe side and do no such thing? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're in the clear if you're certain that the user is a blocked/banned user (which in this case is quite clear). | Mr. Darcy talk 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jtervin 96h block

Hi, Mr. Darcy. IMHO, I think Jtervin should have been given a warning before you issued a block. Per his userpage, he is "confused easily." On my nomination for deletion, I ~~forgot~~ was too lazy to put the "--" mark (see this), and I see where the confusion may arise. Anyhow, your call. Real96 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Real96. Given that he has two prior blocks, and given the unpleasant language he used on your user page, I chose to give him a block that was double the length of his previous block. If he requests an unblock and tries to rectify the situation, I'd consider reducing it, but calling another user what he called you really isn't OK with me. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages (Talk/Userpage)

Can you please unprotect my user and talk pages. Thanks. Real96 10:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so much. I was having a problem with the hidden comment, but I got it fixed now. I am thinking about starting a project which translates all of the warnings in English Wikipedia into their various languages which provides a link to the article in their language. A user on the Coco Bandicoot page was speaking in Italian and I reverted all of their edits. There would be levels such as test-1 to test-4, but I need multilingual people to help with the project. Do you think this can be done? Thanks. Real96 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can try - I'd be happy to help with the languages I know (es, fr, it at the least). Have you started it? Perhaps you should try it in a subpage in your userspace. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Bonkers

MrDarcy, can you please see this edit here. Firstly, called my opinion vandalism is both in breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - what can be done about this type pf behaviour? regards--Vintagekits 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has done it again here--Vintagekits 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be resolved for the moment. If he repeats this action on any page, let me know, as he has been adequately warned not to do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Recoome

Did I do it correct? Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very similar username

During RC patrolling I happened to catch the creation of User:Mister darcy. Probably a coincidence, but I thought you might want to know. Natalie 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, no problem. I have placed comments on the talk page for the article and on a few of the users and IPs that are editing the page as well, I only did the comments in thr summary because I didn't feel they were reading the other messages. I will refrain from this in the future. AlanD 07:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Take a look at Talk:Diarmuid O'Neill#Analysis of sources used when you get a chance. Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changine usernames

Hi, I just noticed your comment at WP:CHU that a user with few edits is likely to have their change username request denied. Although it was true in the past, Essjay has made it pretty clear recently that he no longer views edit count as a criteria for a rename and will rename any user who gives a valid reason. Part of the relevant discussion is here. His view appears to be: "Renames are a trivial matter, and there is absolutely no reason to refuse to perform them for users with low edit counts; we profess to be unconcerned with edit counts, so it should not be a factor. " So there shouldn't be any problem in future with encouraging users reported at WP:RFC/NAME to seek a rename once their name is found in violation of username policy. WjBscribe 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP range ban for starwars?

It's been discussed previously (I forget where), but I think it might be time to start thinking about an IP range block... PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hurson

The BBC and a host of other sources list the strike as being 46 days long. In fact, if you look at the dates involved it isn't possible for the strike to be 45 days long. The strike began on 28 May (needs amending on the article, I missed that earlier) and ended on 13 July. That means a total of 4 days in May, 30 in June and 13 in July. Taking into account that the length of the strike is full days, the minimum it can be is 46. You'll probably call that original research, but it does prove that 45 days can't be correct. Sound reasonable? One Night In Hackney 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who . . .

this is? Is he your long lost brother? (just joking) hahahahaha....okay, I'm sorry, it's been a LONG day. :-) Real96 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Here.

		The Original Barnstar
		For putting up with a lot when dealing with Starwars1955 and his numerous sockpuppets. Acalamari 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I thought you, King Bee, and Aviper2k7 all deserved, as you've been dealing with Starwars1955 for about two months. Acalamari 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for your comments at the MCAS El Toro page. Sometimes I wish I was more eloquent when dealing with users pushing an agenda but you summed it up very well. Cheers--Looper5920 05:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review re Kittybrewster and Vintagekits

If you haven't seen it, you might like to cast you eyes over the review I did of recent complaints. Tyrenius 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note!

Hello. Thanks for the opportunity to state unequivocally that I have not and will not use sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia. After more experience editing wp, I recognize the role of WP:TIGERS in Wikipedia, and I hope to eventually have carefully embalmed predators for presentation to Wikipedia. Thanks again for your great work to make Wikipedia what it is! JPatrickBedell 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads Up!

See this. Real96 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment. I don't think the national office would approve such a practice. Real96 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the same sock is at work at Fraternities and sororities,[1] trying to preserve his previous edits and cites and use an already-dubious section on "Joining a black fraternity or sorority" as a NNPOV entry on hazing. The MO is there (same cites, etc.), but of course MKF tones down the insults when he/she is first trying to do a NNPOV insert.-Robotam 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Sinn Féin

Could you please have a look at this, I have reverted vandalism twice on this article, but the same anonomous user keeps inserting POV into the article.--padraig3uk 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's unblock request

Please comment on the unblock request pending at User talk:Vintagekits, for the benefit of whoever reviews the request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Psi

I don't think this is MyKungFu editing the article. Yet, the middle name on nationals was Henry "Turner" Asher, but people keep changing the middle name to "Taliffero". I found this to be true on three websites see this and this and this. What should happen? Real96 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user also made a note on Bearly's talk archive. I reverted the page, because Bearly is retired. However, do you think this is a sockpuppet of MyKungfu? Real96 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dan Hawkins

I said nothing of the sort. Please don't put words into my mouth, or "warn" me for actions that I haven't yet done. --MECU≈talk 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read this part: "But re-visiting the issue...". I would interpret that as starting a new discussion. Whatever happened to Assume good faith? --MECU≈talk 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy, because I think it's notable only because it's recent. Being unhappy about it doesn't mean I plan to do any future action, except what I stated: revisit it in a few years to determine if it's still notable (implying a discussion). Again, the pre-warning is not WP:AGF. --MECU≈talk 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said a few months. This is the second time I've clearly had to correct you from putting words into my mouth. There was no vague threat, or threat at all. As an established editor, I don't think pre-warning me is acceptable, especially since you are mis-interpreting my words. My reverts were completely acceptable, especially since most of them were removing quotes that did not provide a source. --MECU≈talk 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this image?

Shown here: Image:B00005RIK5.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg. Thanks. Real96 02:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppetry

How should I go about this? There can be no "proof" of sockpuppetry, not even if all of them had identical IPs it wouldn't necessarily mean they are operated by the same person. But, maybe you have been involved in such cases, it is completely obvious for the people dealing with them.

I noticed the amazing similarities between RalphLender and DPeterson first, and thought they were just good friends, maybe one was imitating the other. So I looked at their talkpages, editsummaries, list of contributions and suddenly realized that they are operated by the same person. As I researched this, I found out there has been an earlier mediation attempt on an article and that one other user (shotwell, left wp, it looks like) has made the same observations, he requested checkuser and it was declined. I could not find the archive for that page, so I don't know which admin took over that situation, but checkuser would have to be declined because of the 100-rule. According to the relevant policy, if a sockpuppet survives 100 edits, it can not be 'uncovered' by a checkuser procedure. On some other page though, I forgot where, something like Administrator's noticeboard or Admin intervention, it clearly states that sockpuppets may not be abused. Now that he is abusing them, I wonder if he can be uncovered? Otherwise I really don't care any more.

DPeterson obviously operates seven different accounts, there is a list [here]: shotwell lists the reasons why he suspects sockpuppetry, I believe he also provides some diffs, if I remember correctly. The names are DPeterson, RalphLender, MarkWood, AWeidman, JonesRD, SamDavidson and JohnsonRon. Note that shotwell says in this text that at least one other user has said out loud that these are sockpuppets. In addition to what user:shotwell lists as 'evidence' I'd say they are all on the same articles and have an identical personality, which has some traits of a certain pesonality disorder (not that I want to say he is mentally ill). They all have the same style of not stating arguments but immediately requesting 'dispute resolution'. You can give them a direct link to an online pub-med abstract (can't get any more scientific than that) and they will still answer: 'Give me verifiable information' and link verifiable not to the policy but to the Wikipedia entry. In addition to that they all have the same style of twisting things, resort to ad hominem statements right away when asked to provide some opinion or evidence.

What should I do? An RfC? I am really not willing to invest any more time into this. --Grace E. Dougle 09:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent her unfounded accusations. There had been a dispute with Shotwell and it was resolved. His accusation of sockpupetry was determined to be unfounded. His accusations were unfounded and not Dougle points to the complaints as proof, despite having been "dismissed." Dougle's slanders, "which has some traits of a certain personality disorder..." is offensive, not consistent with the policy of assume good faith and is clearly uncivil. I particularily resent her spreading such false rumors as she does here. I would like this addressed with her. I think she is violating the Wikipedia standard of no personal attacks WP:NPA. Can you intervene here with her for me? DPeterson^talk 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been resolved...there were previous allegations and those were unfounded. I am not going to glorify this uncivil user's personal attacks. The matter seems to have been resolved for now. I appreciate your time and attention to this...DPeterson^talk 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikipedia Watch

I noticed that you recently deleted Wikipedia Watch for being a double redirect. What was it redirecting to? --- RockMFR 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel Brandt which then redirected to Google Watch (although given what's gone on with the former, it might not redirect there right now). Redirecting WW directly to GW didn't make sense to me, esp. since WW isn't mentioned at all in the Google Watch article. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the edit history at Wikipedia Watch non-trivial? Since Daniel Brandt is back (at least for now), it probably would be a good idea to restore it. --- RockMFR 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history was non-trivial, but the article had been a redirect for nearly a year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (second nom). I'm not going to object (and certainly won't wheel-war!) if someone restores it, but at the same time, I feel like the DB situation is in such flux that we could end up restoring and deleting this article a few times as we try to chase the status of the target article - better to wait at least until the ArbCom decision comes down and then to follow their dictates. Agreed? | Mr. Darcy talk 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it can wait until the DRV decision is made (certainly not ArbCom, if that's what you really meant). --- RockMFR 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help deleting an article

Hi there,

The article slumpbuster was voted for deletion on January 25, but has not been deleted yet. Could you go ahead and delete it? Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(insert whooshing sounds) Article deleted. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreaciated.--Thomas.macmillan 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, Could you please vote on whether [[2]] article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 February 2007

MKF again

Please see this RfC on Robotam, shown here. I looked at WP:AN, and noticed the link. Oh, and thanks for deleting my image! :-) Real96 06:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for block

of User:RepublicUK for this edit [3] - Kittybrewster 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is stalking User:Couter-revolutionary. No idea who he is. - Kittybrewster 16:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect RepublicUK is Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand why, but they're almost certainly not the same person - the timing of their edits doesn't line up at all. He'd have to be awake almost 24 hours a day to be using both accounts. I admit that I'm at a loss as to who else might be behind R-UK, though. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

I am totally shocked at the way I am being treated here. This guy made that up, it states so clearly in my post on the admin board page. There were no other posts apart from my answer to your question. If you do not want an answer, don't ask a question, btw.(?) I did not make the sockpuppetry claims up, the checkuser request was deferred because of an ongoing mediation at the time, and never reconsidered, I found the archive. I am totally shocked at the way I am being treated here. I am still shaking. You guys should really get your act together. I am seriously worried about is that noone seems to care about how this guy (Dodge) attacks me on that board and noone even cares. (Policy against personal attacks?) And then the singular they (by Dodge). I am disgusted. Noone cares about the disruption DPeterson causes. I understand perfectly well that you do not want new editors, but then don't encourage us to contribute. Bye.--Grace E. Dougle 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mykungfu cases at WP:SSP

Hi MrDarcy, I've noticed that you've blocked a number of Mykungfu socks. I wonder if you'd mind looking at the cases filed against him at WP:SSP (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (5th) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (4th)), as there are a number of suspected socks/IPs listed there that aren't blocked. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two users listed on those pages who aren't blocked - User:Vkmayes (one edit on 1/22) and User:Mukokeri (two edits on 2/21). While they may very well be socks, I don't see sufficient evidence at this point to block them. MKF always hangs himself with his edits, so I'm happy to be patient. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at those. I'm going to go ahead and close the older case, but leave the newer one open. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Psi Phi

This 131.118.144.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps replacing "lamp" with "dog" in the symbols line. Lamp is the official symbol of the fraternity, like ivy is to AKAs, and sphinx is to Alphas. I have warned this user four times about this. I know that this is a content dispute. However, on the talk page archives, shown here, the nickname "Que Dog" is not an official symbol of the fraternity. Real96 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Set

Please, I am not part of any set. AfDs are listed. I may share common concerns with other editors, but that is all. David Lauder 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be lumped in with the other editors in that set, then stop !voting in lock-step with them and start offering reasons that mesh with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Votes like this one don't do anything to help build the encyclopedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you read into my activities something you should not. But it is your opinion, just as my comment to which you refer is my heartfelt belief. David Lauder 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's your belief, but you can't impose your beliefs on Wikipedia. We have a wide set of rules and guidelines to help decide what should and should not be included and to make sure that no individual's set of beliefs takes over the encyclopedia. As for what I might read into your activities, the fact that every time there's a criticism of any one of Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Major Bonkers, or yourself, or an AfD involving one of you, one or more of the rest show up to put an uninformed 2p in really makes it look as if you are not thinking independently, but are acting in lock-step. If you start to act independently of the others, then no one will have any reason to lump you together. I would certainly like to see that, because at the end of the day you're willing to spend time here and make constructive edits, and I'd rather you spend all your time on that and less time supporting the POV-pushing of other users. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where you are wrong is stating that I am trying to "impose my beliefs on Wikipedia" or trying to take over the encyclopaedia. I think you're probably about as uncivil as anyone making such remarks. I have not tried to do anything of the sort. I made a correct and proper comment on an Article for Deletion nomination as to why I felt it should be deleted. You did not agree, in any way, with that comment. I felt it was an appropriate remark about the inclusion of certain materiéls in this (indeed any) encyclopaedia. You did not. It seems to me that your overall approach and put-down manner of speaking is quite inappropriate and a little dictatorial. I think you need to stand back and consider the views of others. If they are grossly offensive then make an approach. But to speak to adults as though they are in a kindergarten class is wrong. We are all (or at least I am) attempting to edit according to Wikipedia rules. If attempts at rational adult discussion are to be severely clamped down on (censored) using rules and regulations in an over-the-top manner then I think it is a rather sad development. David Lauder 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told more than once that your reason for !voting for deletion isn't valid, and yet you continued to !vote in that manner. Your comments were completely inappropriate for an AfD discussion, and stood in direct contrast to WP:NPOV (that is, you were trying to delete articles that didn't fit your POV). If you say you're trying to edit according to Wikipedia rules, then when experienced editors point out to you that you're not following those rules, alter your behavior. It can't be said more plainly than that. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in breach of WP:CIVIL in suggesting that my contributions are uninformed? My reason for voting for deleting of some articles is that I regard the subject as non-notable. Other people (and sometimes me) think they are notable and say so. That is a question of judgment and opinion and is determined by me according to my understanding of notability. Having made my point, I leave it to the adjudicator to assess my view along with those of others. - Kittybrewster 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be a perfect example of what I was talking about. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get his straight. You are saying that it is not a breach of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA for you to say my 2p worth is uninformed in a conversation in which I have not participated? - Kittybrewster 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Darcy, I thought you might be interested in more of what you consider "lock step" here. regards--Vintagekits 20:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To disrupt, or not to disrupt?

The sockpuppet of Mykungfu strikes again with a unwarranted check user. I have removed his comment from Killer Chihuahua's talk page, because of trolling. BTW, can you please respond here, because I am trying to enforce my talk page rules, thanks! Real96 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you put this on WP:ANI, because I am too tired at this point. Thanks. Real96 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. There's zero justification for a CU against you and only MKF would know about Bearly, who's been gone for several weeks now. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MKF

I added info re: Anon IP's on MKF's most recent sock evidence page. MKF has been attempting to evade blocks via 68.175.26.54, 172.191.196.211 and 67.87.197.9 (solely his/hers), as well as operating via IP 149.68.7.90 of St. John's University. MKF edits appear to originate from 69.203.11.163 as well.-Robotam 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing fact tags without providing evidence

Mr. Darcy, I was under the impression that it was against wiki policies to remove fact tags without providing evidence. However, User:Couter-revolutionary has removed my fact tag twice without providing evidence, please see here for what I am talking about. I do not want to get into an edit war with him so I will leave it until I hear from you. regards--Vintagekits 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have removed the sentence entirely and opened a thread on the article's talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, --Vintagekits 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in this provocative edit which is also a breach of WP:CIVIL by User:Couter-revolutionary. regards--Vintagekits 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block Removal

I have just noticed that you have placed a edit ban on User Jayzel. I've reviewed the overall context of the situation, in both the articles in question and their respective discussion pages. I sincerely believe the block should be removed, as the other user (Jiffymetalpop) charged Jayzel without significant proof and clear, thorough discussion. The charge for libel and forced persuasion of discussion (through various user IDs) was not supported and considered objectively, but was hastily concluded on the part of Jiffymetalpop. I also believe Jayzel's use of the word "case" is not a threat of legal action, but strong advice to Jiffy to restrain from making unsubstantiated claims. No one from an objective third person view can definitively say that the word "case" refers to a clear legal threat. Moreover, according to a strict look at Wikipedia threat policy, Jayzel is not the one making a "case." He is simply requesting that Jiffy have one with evidence before charging libel, etc. I am not familiar with Jayzel on any personal or Wikipedian level, which you can see in my own talk page and contributions. Let me know what you think. LifeScience 07:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion at AN

As a courtesy note, a user - David Lauder (talk) - has initiated a discussion that concerns you. At the time of this message, it is located at #Out of Order. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Bot

VolBot keeps reverting my edits on the AKA page -- seen here: [4]. Can you please block it? Thanks. Real96 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out why it's reverting your edits. Will let you know if I can figure it out. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why I Vandalized

I have been banned from editing for 24 hours because of "Anti-Semitic Vandalism". While I do acknowledge that it was vandalism, it was not anti semitic. I simply added the caption "These Jews have been pwned" to a picture on the Holocaust page, which is just adding gamer talk to the page, which I can understand as vandalism. Also, what I did on the Jew article is added a picture on the Holocaust subsection of the article, which is not vandalism. Liist 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out . . .

FrozenApe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alpha Kappa Nu. Have a good one! Real96 23:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the article and closed the AfD. That looks like a pretty clear sock based on contribs, so I added to the checkuser too. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]