Jéské Couriano, for having such a generous heart and mind by unblocking Blablaaa, (during his unjustified block by Nick-D that led to the AN report) you have shown me that you are an admin of integrity and honor -- a real genuine admin -- that believes in doing what's right. For that I present to you this barnstar. Sincerely, Caden. Cadencool 09:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For staying composed and unhindered in the face of attacks from relentless groups of vandals and trolls. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, hey there. He was being entirely polite with his requests, and his description of where he edits from and the IP similarity (firewall / common web gateway at the base) are entirely credible.
However, he has no edits at all to article space. If you've been here almost 3 years and you haven't edited an article once, there's a good chance you're not interested in helping contribute to Wikipedia. Having said that, that was his fourth unblock request - generally, other admins revoke TP at the third one. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 19:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stupid rule and it needs to stop. If the user is not being disruptive with unblock requests, there is no need to revoke access.
How was this account identified as a sock? "1775" is part of the Marine culture, so just the fact that they share 1775 and an IP address does not necessarily mean they are the same person.
What harm is there in unblocking to see what happens? I am minded to give them a shot. –xenotalk 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to unblock, I won't have any objections. However, I still hold serious reservations about the account since his only edits since he registered in 2007 were to his own userspace. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pops1775 is a brand new account with a proclivity to call everyone a douche. Bunns1775 is a years-old account that has never done anything wrong, and disclosed their real name and rank. What makes you think they are the same? –xenotalk 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My decline wasn't based upon sockpuppetry, and nor was my comment above. My concerns are that he doesn't intend to contribute to Wikipedia. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you able to divine his intent? What possible benefit is there to keeping him blocked? I think you've perhaps become too jaded to handle unblock requests if this is the way you are going to handle individuals who have been erroneously blocked, who have never done anything wrong, and who say they want to start contributing constructively. –xenotalk 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh You know what, Xeno? I am very jaded. I'm getting tired of the constant kvetching over petty differences and the constant abuse from not only those whom are blocked, but by those who bypass their blocks with dynamic IPs or CrackBerries. I'm tired of vandals getting a free pass simply because they know how to fuck with their routers or tether. I'm very tired of it. I've been getting steadily more and more tired of it since JI Hawkins reared his ugly head, and I'm starting to lose it. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling, but try to limit the collateral damage. And please forgive my bluntness, I just cringe when I see potential constructive contributors get driven off or near-to. Burnout will eventually turn this place into a ghost town if we don't welcome and encourage fresh meat. –xenotalk 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I say in re welcoming and encouraging fresh meat will be overtly political, so I'll not respond to that. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my original decline to the autoblock-ip was intended to be just that. Similarity in the usernames was enough to have him sit out the remaining hours of the 24hour autoblock, especially with the oddness that an account that had registered in 2007 had only on this day decided to edit and found out he couldn't. After the autoblock was up, his account could stand and fall on its own merits. Other people took it from there, and I note that jpgordon did some tidying on the user's talkpage at one point. While I don't expect people with checkuser (as jpgordon does, IIRC) to run checks on random things, I would think that he would have at least done a driveby checkuser when tidying up unblock requests on a page tagged as a sock (or also concluded that it was business as usual and therefore no need to CU). Syrthiss (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you must have just used the e-mail option, I won't need to place a {{helpme}} on my talk page. It's probably something simple to access it anyway. mechamind90 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did. You can reply to the email I sent to you in your client/browser or contact me via the "E-Mail this user" function. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 06:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt action at AN/I and on behalf of NawlinWiki; as you gathered, I wasn't sure what to do but it's clear that you did. Two questions: is there any policy of which I should have been aware that governs this situation, and what (if anything) needs to happen to notify NawlinWiki? Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NawlinWiki is offline, else he'd have reverted it himself. Policy-wise, I'd rather not discuss it on-wiki... Check your inbox. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 17:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then that should amount to wiki hounding and war editing on my page, isnt it. my page is being regularly edited and i am being given warnings for no-issues and discussable matters. it is a persistent effort to get me blocked without hearing me.
But it isn't a block. Do not use an unblock request unless you are actually blocked, and do not request administrator help to quash what appears to be a legitimate discussion about content (as administrators aren't permitted to take a side in content disputes). —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well the party is out of ammunition for discussion here. is not giving logical arguments. even after this what if i am blocked following two warnings. it isnt fair if that happens. anyway thanks for the help, i appreciate it.
Do you mind unlocking the Sureños article? The article hasn't had excessive vandalism. Once a month or so, someone might deface the page. The majority of the time, it's just someone adding unreferenced content. I keep an eye on the article, and make revisions once a week or as needed. I don't really see where it warranted locking.
Someone has removed sourced content from the article before you locked it, and now I can't restore the information. So it would be a plus if you could unlock the article. 74.248.93.214 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. The history's showing more IP vandalism than what you're making it out to be. My recommendation is to point out the diff where the information was removed; I'll restore it for you. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about it being a compromised account. I don't know if you saw this, but check here. Enigmamsg 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, but I noticed a very stark discrepancy between later edits and older ones, which led me to believe the account had been compromised. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the account originator believes in "guest accounts" and creates them and publishes the passwords. Of course, before long, some vandal gets ahold of the account. No way of knowing how many times he's done this... Enigmamsg 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone bothered to point him to m:Role account? This isn't an en.wp issue, last I recalled, it's a legal issue due to licensing. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know and I also don't know how you could reach the guy except maybe if he has e-mail enabled. Enigmamsg 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the likelihood that he's made a new role account is high. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he'd created more than one account when you said that stuff on his userpage a while back. No way to know how many accounts he opened. I guess checkuser wouldn't be of use here because it would be stale as far as the original operator goes. Enigmamsg 23:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser may not peg the original operator, but it would more than likely detect other accounts created since Faethon; we're well within the range from CU cradle to /dev/null. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Jeske, we seem to have been missing each other on IRC for a while. If you're still around, i'll be up for a while yet. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible new look for The Signpost arbitration report[edit]
Hi Jéské
You may be aware that there is a discussion about making improvements to the layout of The Signpost. I'm writing to you and User:Ncmvocalist initially to ask what you think about the idea of using the ArbCom logo at the top of the Arbitration Report page. Roger Davies, the Coordinating Arbitrator, was very positive about this; but of course, you guys are the writers, so please, can you let me know whether you wish me to proceed to the next stage and ask Ragesoss and others whether they approve? Here's what I had in mind, which removes the duplicated words "Arbitration Report", too.
Hi Jéské. My initial thoughts are here, but I'd like to see what you think before saying much beyond that. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial thoughts I don't disagree with; one could always take use the scales icon in the middle, alone, without the blue text. Just a thought. Tony(talk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share a bit of the same concerns as Ncmvocalist. For one, I don't intend to turn the Arb report into a surrogate noticeboard, and having the balance at the top gives the impression that the content of the page is endorsed by the Committee. (In fact, I've had an arb complain about my wording; I've since worked his changes into my text.) For two, I don't see the addition of the scales as necessary to understand that it's this week's T.R.O.L.L., especially since "Arbitration Report", in big letters, is present both in the page title and right at the top of the page. Finally, as Ncmvocalist notes, my selection of what to cover is generally restricted to the important stuff - cases, motions, resignations, etc. Note that I've deliberately glossed over April's BASC statistics release because, to put it bluntly, most readers aren't going to care overmuch about the internal processes of the Committee; what the Committee decides upon will often alter the scope of their editing. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no problems; except I took exception to your blunt, single-word edit summary of "No". It's a brush-off that is totally inappropriate. Tony(talk) 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, blunt and to-the-point is more my writing style. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 16:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a quick heads up that this account is possibly related to User:DeanKamen. I declined their first unblock request (which they removed) pending an explanation of how this account is/is not related to DeanKamen. Cheers. TNXMan 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that moving the goalposts should never be done, the issue is that Oversight and CU are ultimately necessary jobs that should never be politicized
Unsure what that means?
Should never be done? Then don't do it!
Should never be politicized? Changing the election rules after the election is very much what a politician would want to do.
This is not an attack on you but just a note that what you write is confusing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we even had a private election instead of consensus-gathering is evidence that the CU/OS positions are being increasingly politicized. There is nothing contradictory in my statement above - the moment those jobs are corrupted by Wikipedia's political processes, the moment their reliability is reduced. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 03:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever's using the account has requested unblock again and seems penitent. Any comments? Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the section named "Faethon Ghost" above. I've added a number onto the end of this section for disambiguation purposes. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has become painfully clear to me that there is no longer any form of legitimate protest on Wikipedia. Administrators apparently cannot issue self-requested blocks without having another user threatening the admin in emails he or she sends to the blockee. It is with great regret, therefore, that I hereby request my own community ban from the project for the crime of blocking myself to protest FlaggedRevisions. —Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori) 21:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you remain sysop via this or a new account, feel free to stay on Wikipedia. mechamind90 05:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Useful, ILIKEIT. Get back to work. ;) Jack Merridew 06:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has gotten ridiculous. I support your decision fully, Jéské, so even if you don't come back, it's not a completely worthless move. —fetch·comms 17:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your valuable work on the Signpost's Arbitration Reports since the beginning of this year!
The Signpost Barnstar
For his knowledgeable, diligent and reliable work to keep the Wikipedia community informed about important events, I award Jéské Couriano The Signpost Barnstar. HaeB (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self blocking is not supposed to happen. However, legal threats can result in a block. If you e-mail me (you blocked yourself so that you can't edit your talk page but you did not block e-mail) with the following text, I will submit it on your behalf.
"I hereby threaten to sue you for trying to help me on my Wikipedia talk page. This threat is effective until 15 June 2011. Even though I don't really plan to sue you, I still make this statement". You may say 2012, if you wish.
Also, I see that you disabled autoblock which means you are technically able to edit using your sockpuppets. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually seen a few admins block themselves before, usually as a self-imposed wikibreak. User:Rd232 I can name off-hand.. -- Ϫ 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suomi, that's not at all a sensible suggestion to make. AGK 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He can edit all he wants with another account, it's not like his presence or his absence are a great modifying factor. --Hrotovice (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)No, he's told me that all of his other accounts, (Doppelgänger accounts) are just "moved my fingers up and down the keyboard" passwords, therefore he cannot use them. Pilif12p : Yo 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Wikipedia is carrying on with flagged revisions. The good news is that the first article it was used on is a former semi-protected page. I'll be okay as long as they don't put it on unprotected pages. mechamind90 22:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're still going to work with Wikipedia every time vandalism is out of control on the entire site? mechamind90 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop cluttering watchlists and logs with your "temporary unblocks." Grow a pair, have some principles, and stay blocked, or don't. But stop making a damn mess of things. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you also remain unblocked. Continuing to block/unblock yourself will lead to other sanctions. Tiptoetytalk 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better than heroin, perhaps, and as addictive and a lot cheaper. Pending Revisions is so slow that you might want to consider doing what I have done; simply unwatch those articles. That way, you can get on with what you consider to be the best use of your time here. One has to consider these issues, and particularly so when you know your remaining time here, or anywhere, may be limited. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské, seeing as you are choosing to continue to be disruptive by continually unblocking and blocking yourself, I have put an end to the cycle. We will let ArbCom take this from here. Tiptoetytalk 00:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to ArbCom. I assume someone will be contacting you soon. Tiptoetytalk 00:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jeske. Further to our private discussion tonight, I have added your name to the "exceptions" list of editors who do not want to be granted Reviewer permissions.[1] Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I have also, as we discussed, lifted your block (after conferring with Tiptoety), and removed your edit filter manager permission, at your request. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Best, Risker (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano. As the admin who unblocked User:Blablaaa (in April) according to community consensus, you may be interested in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, under the section "Testing the water". Could you share your thoughts? I believe your input could be helpful. Just so you know, another admin (User:TomStar81) was not honest in regards to your unblock. Thanks. Cadencool 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got your email. Thank you. Cadencool 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally planned to not edit Wikipedia for the duration of the trial. However, recent events have put too much stress on me for this to be possible, and, for my own sanity and destressing purposes, I can't continue to avoid Wikipedia.
Dude, what happened? Is everything OK? I saw that you say you were desysopped...? BOZ (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was, on July 11th. I'm not willing to go into why I was deopped, except to say (1) I asked for it and (2) I will need an RfA to reclaim the tools. —Jeremy(v^_^vCarl Johnson) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Well, if you want them back later then I hope you get them, and if you don't want them then I hope you're happier without! BOZ (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it all depends on one thing. (You'll have to excuse my vagueness here, but this is crossing over into forbidden territory here, so I'll just point you to Risker's section above.) —Jeremy(v^_^vCarl Johnson) 18:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see enough clues on your talk page to get what I think is a good enough idea of what happened and where you are coming from - clearly it's a sensitive enough topic that I'll respect your desire to leave it alone. Meanwhile, I'm glad that although you resigned the mop, that you're still around (for now at least) - I always liked you! BOZ (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to assure you that whatever you think is a "good enough idea" is missing half the information. —Jeremy(v^_^vCarl Johnson) 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a good enough of an idea to see that it's a sensitive topic that you'd rather not discuss - I respect that, and don't really need to be filled in on the rest. Given the subject matter that you appear to be referring to, I know that it is a controversial topic that I have my own opinions on. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we were talking past each other there. My offer for the EF right was based on the assumption that the EF got the first crack at edits. If it still needs a tweak, the offer is still good, but I've semi-ed the page. Cheers! TNXMan 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I have held admin rights, but for the most part I would rather the clowns supporting PC practice as they preach and deal with him themselves. —Jeremy(v^_^vCarl Johnson) 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Anyway, hopefully this issue is resolved. On a side note, were you heavily involved with the EF? I occasionally run into questions about it and I only know of a few people I can bother ask when something comes up. TNXMan 03:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for the assist. TNXMan 03:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm trying to figure out on IRC if NawlinWiki amended the filter to catch the edits on his talk page; he's been getting far more extreme as of late. But I'm getting the impression that NawlinWiki added a rule to bust this specific defamatory content, so you may want to look into it. I don't have a filter number; sorry. —Jeremy(v^_^vCarl Johnson) 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, it looks like filter 58. People were banging on the door for a couple of hours, but didn't get anywhere (except blocked). The last tweak was yesterday, so maybe that caught most of it. TNXMan 03:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is sixty six point six percent. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
from every 60 you only need 40 objectors, it is not 60 percent at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually quite a fair percentage, less than sixty six point six percent approval and the tool is not continued. What percentage of support do think is needed? Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is 6 - 4... not six out of ten, 6 - 4 = sixty six point six percent, try asking a friend, I assure you its correct. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "six-and-four" is not 66.6%. It's 60%. You do not subtract the lesser number from the larger to determine percentage; that's incredibly bad mathematics. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/VC is a show-trial!) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean two thirds, then say 2/3rds, 4/6 is equally acceptable. Saying 6-4 is saying 6 chose A and 4 chose B. QTC 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our disagreement on pending changes notwithstanding to this posting, just be careful when replying to posts on a talk page, such as with this edit. You placed your comment between my comment and the one that I was replying to, which had the negative effect of making it look like I supported your comment, which I did not know even existed. Since my comment is the first comment, I have restored it immediately following what I was replying to and placed yours second per normal talk page format. Cheers! CycloneGU (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
intelati has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Do you mind discussing with me why you oppose the pending changes? I promise not to attack you. I just want to see if you have suggestions for the program. If not, please reply nicly to my talk page.
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Intelati's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Chummer, stop trying to persuade me. I will never support a tool that damns IPs. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!) 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. I personly like it, but a person is his own soooooo... sorry :) hope we can work together--intelati 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok thats good for me--intelati 03:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good it's bad for you.
One more Question, what will happen if it is expanded to all BLPs?--intelati 04:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW thanks for that nice converstation I enjoyed it--intelati 04:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit of requests for page protection[edit]
Hi there,
Regarding this edit: I don't mean to say you are right or wrong, but this is apparently what Twinkle does. Sorry if it caused any inconvenience. Regards, Skysmurf (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest I noticed this before but nobody complained so far. But in any case, I simply filled out the required fields and apparently this is how Twinkle handles it. I can ask about this at the Village Pump or the Twinkle talk page if you think I should. Regards, Skysmurf (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Ocaasi's talk page. Message added 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Removed Pending Changes question to my talk page Ocaasi (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't look at the history of the talk page. --intelati 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three years I'd spent as an admin taught me that the history is the best way to determine what all was on a talk page before. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
never had a problem until now. Peace out. :)--intelati 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least we agree on one thing on the pending changes. :D Thanks for the excellent converstations.--intelati(Call) 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've emailed you concerning a possible need for your input at The Signpost in the next week or two. Tony(talk) 07:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please reveiw Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.
If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.
I'm more concerned that his minions read the threads and gain a life of their own; it's happened before when we edited a template to reflect their activity on WP. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!) 03:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'd like to show our appreciation for those who have so far contributed significantly by offering the MVP's of the design process the opportunity to select one nonfeatured article to appear in the trading card game. Your name is on our list of MVP's. Please submit your proposal here. See you there! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem...we're now working out what cards will be in the game and what the cards will say, and we'd love your input. Welcome back to Wikipedia, also! Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Wikipedia in that field. Also I'm an active wikimedia contributor and sincerely support ideas that Wikipedia declares. Thanks. Gkrellm (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have administrator tools and have not had them since July. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen what he is been doing. He was vandalizing my talk page and the ITN page continually, so i warned him. It is not like i have been using the tool for fun. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I Can defend myself, can you???."[sic] and "You are just an IP user. I am a reviewer" are not "warnings". If they are warnings, then so is brandishing a club and gesturing towards someone's head. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 08:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he was irritating me and other editors. How can i bare it. If someone was continually criticizing you, what would you do. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my interruption. You deal with it. Being a reviewer or rollbacker does not give you any more "power" or "right" than anyone else. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was planning on saying. When I was an admin, I took their criticism and, if legitimate, took it into consideration. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Next time i will try to bare everything and solve the problem more peacefully. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's "bear", for future reference. I keep having to remind myself you're not disrobing :/ —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:Protection policy. I feel I should point out, however, that what is on that page should at best be taken as a rough guideline - not too many cases are so cut and dried as to guarantee a specific protection level, and most times it ultimately comes down to the protecting administrator's discretion. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 08:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send me a link to the policy that explains the actual reason why my request was rejected? The link you sent me was to the policy page itself, which I assume was a mistake because it doesn't provide any sort of answer to my question. I had read that before making the request, of course. What page did you mean to link? I'm curious what specific policy was used to reject the request. I understand that the admin's discretion is a big part of it, but getting some reason why the request was would rejected would help me understand why the request was rejected. Thanks! Kuguar03 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked you to the protection policy deliberately. In cases where there's IPs bothering an article, it varies from admin to admin which is an appropriate level of vandalism to prot for (in other words, admin discretion). Some admins will prot for sustained long-term vandalism (particularly if biographical concerns are involved); others will only prot if they're seeing massive amounts of vandalism in a short amount of time. There's no "magic bullet" anywhere in policy, I'm afraid. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 09:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but it comes up and says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so." so I just followed. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only if you're starting a thread about them, not replying to an existing one they have already responded to. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for clarifying. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely appreciate your having thought enough to watch my talk page. I really should start doing likewise for nice folks like you who help keep this site clean and who help to protect those who do. A very merry Christmas to you, my friend. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no worries. Bsadowski and I spent a few hours last night whac-a-moling as much as we could find, especially after we figured out the nature of most of his usernames. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 18:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 沙盒. Since you had some involvement with the 沙盒 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to answer you on the other page. I changed the "NOTES TO" to upper and lower, but still got blocked. Help? Again, thanks.The Pluton (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, I got it. Thank you very much!The Pluton (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is, from looking at the revision, it's the fully-capitalized "Hitler" and "Nemesis" that's tripping the filter. (Filter log for your viewing pleasure.) —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 08:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation contacted and looking into it. Seems to work a lot better than the old admin/CU roulette. Acroterion(talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to outright delete someone's ANI, it might be nice to at least drop me a line on my talk page to let you know you outright zapped it. After all, we're all just trying to build a better encyclopedia. WCityMike 02:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally only outright remove ANIs for two reasons - Either they're requests for oversight misconstrued as requests for revision deletion, or they unwittingly feed a particularly virulent user. Yours fell in the first instance. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but under the premise of not biting people who unwittingly make a simple mistake, what I'm saying is that, when you do this, it might at least be nice to let people know you outright deleted their request and they put it in the wrong place. If I hadn't spent the time to search through WP:ANI's rather huge history to find out where the heck my request had gone, then the situation would've remained unaddressed and unrectified. WCityMike 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove information on my talk page? SilverserenC 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit from MrMan12321, who's now indef'd for mass-spamming a "manliness" award to literally tens of users? —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I had been responding in other places, including his talk page, about the award, that means that I had seen it on my talk page already. Thus, if I wanted it removed, don't you think I would have done it myself? SilverserenC 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware you were discussing it, actually. I saw the solipsism block on IRC and double-checked his contribs wondering what the heck he did to deserve such a block (since the block rationale was unhelpful). When I saw what he was doing, I rb'd all of them that I could. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just wanted to find out why and let you know that i've reverted you on my talk page. I don't know about other people, but I don't like removal of stuff from my talk page by others, no matter what it is. If I want something removed, i'll do it myself. Thanks anyways. SilverserenC 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Null persp. (As an aside, I generally do not object to being reverted if you feel I've overstepped my boundaries.) —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Thanks. I was getting a little worried there! LOLRaul17 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit my user talk page!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not even to remove a spammed "manliness award" that borders on sexism? —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhough MrMan's edit was downright silly was it not my prerogative to do what I felt like, unless you had a good reason for doing what you did?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I had was that it was a mass-spammed sexist award. Now, since this is the second section made about this in spite of the megathread above, anyone coming on here to complain about me reverting MrMan's "manliness award" needs to stop making a new thread about it and merge their complaint into the megathread. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ongoing Pending Changes discussion.[edit]
Hi, I'm a relatively new editor. I noticed your endorsement here and thought it seemed mighty cynical. I'd appreciate your time in talking to me about what makes you feel this way. I'm hoping to stick around at WP for a while and want to know what I'm up against. Thanks, Cliff (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, and certainly for the almost three years I was an administrator (10/2007 - 07/2010), Wikipedia is filled primarily with users who have very entrenched points of view about a topic or a series of topics or whom are overzealous about fighting vandals to the exclusion of all else. (I used to fall in the latter category; nowadays I'm just *zealous* about fighting vandals.) These entrenched points of view make editing in many topic areas an exercise in Vogonian tactics, and the overzealous tend to see vandalism where none exists.
There are several safe areas on Wikipedia, yes - but odds are if you're primarily working in an antivandal role or in a topic area where edit warring and fruitless arguments are endemic (such as, for example, any topic area mentioned (or derived from those mentioned) in this list) you're going to end up becoming quickly disillusioned by the constant bickering, the seeming uselessness of it all... It's not an easy task, being an editor. And I, frankly, don't trust my fellow editor in what amounts to a censorship role. —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I've seen a bit of that, but in mathematics there's not much room for argument. Thanks for the link to that list, I'll be sure to peruse it. Thanks again for your time. Mind if I ask you for answers/guidance in the future? Cliff (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Provided you don't come for me for everything (as I don't know the answers to a lot of WP-related questions) go ahead. :) —Jeremy(v^_^vHyper Combo K.O.!) 04:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to come back daily for your wisdom. ;) Cliff (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that the annual lapse into silliness has abated in your part of the world, and that you will not wag your pants at any admin noticeboard again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(cocks head, then shakes it - 13:16 here on 4/1 as of writing, but even then will stop when it becomes 00:00 UTC 4/2. Also points out he didn't wag his pants; he wagged his tail, and then panted) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 20:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem;<quote>"...wags tail and pants."</quote>! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen a list without a comma separating the last two parts? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 00:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought you made a really cute dog (pats Jeremy on the head) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Template:TCACycle WP78 offset. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Template:TCACycle WP78 offset redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Uirauna's talk page. Message added 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
May I ask how you know User:Jackshetler wants the draft to go live, and how you knew the draft existed in the first place? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. He came on asking for help making it go live, so I tagged the redirect that's in the way as G6 and Prodego confirmed him so he could move it once the page is deleted, if he's on at that time. (If not, I'll do the honors, if the deleter doesn't.) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I know you're frustrated about the Pending Changes thing..but just some thoughts. First off, I think you let your frustration run a little wild on you at the end, and the end result was that it actually lessened the impact of what you were trying to say. Also, I would say that it's definitely not a one way street.. I'd look at some of the comments made at Brad in his close of the PC RfC phase.. it seemed a little.. ungrateful that they ask him to close as he is seen as "above the fray", so to speak, and well respected by all sides, then to basically turn on him and basically attack him when he doesn't 100% go with those who wanted PC to go away and never darken the doorstep again.
Anyway, I know this is frustrating, but I thought just to touch base with you and give you my thoughts. Have a good one. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to the parts I omitted? I was about ready to go into a rant about why BLP crusaders (myself, to a degree, included) ultimately gave themselves this self-inflicted wound by being excessively for the celebrities at the expense of viewing the rest of the encyclopedia as fuel for Nero. It wouldn't have been germane to the main issue for me to include the rant, so I instead opted to omit it. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work. Can I ask that you not remove things like this which attempt to report as a whistleblowing activity? There's no way you would know that shouldn't be removed, because I didn't have anything posted... but for future reference, any time that someone is attempting to report to a Foundation staff member, we would not want it to be removed. Again, no way you would know that because I hadn't had the situation come up... Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this was discussed on AN/I and on Jimbo's talk page after that user filed a frivolous request for Arbitration, and it was determined the user is a sockpuppet of some sort. I don't recall whom, off the top of my head, but give me a moment and I'll link you to the relevant threads. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 03:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the user page of Parentsp (talk·contribs), whom Parentsp2 is listed as a sock of, it's Dereks1x(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who's a persistent, if erratic in activity, banned user here on en.wp. Fram (talk·contribs) removed similar posts from Jimbo's talk page ([2]). Looking over RfArb's history, Parentsp (no number at the end) did file an RfArb; it's standard fuck-tha-police anti-anti-vandalism screeds. I can't find any AN/I posts, AN posts, or Jimbo Wales user talk page threads wrt this user however. You may ultimately have better luck contacting oversighters. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to each his own. The main reasons I don't care about the hivemind seeing recognition is that they have a very short, collective attention span. When one vandal is denied access, he may get angry and try again; when a dozen of them see their efforts thwarted, they adopt an attitude along the lines of, "let's give up and move somewhere else" (which is what happened earlier today). My post was just to inform others of current happenings. m.o.p 03:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you've been involved with User:Misconceptions2 before, so I'd like to ask if you have interest in this RfC. I think I mistakenly reported it too early. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a V, S, and M component, but no F/DF? There are a lot of spells you can't cast without that... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2E doesn't have F/DF. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it. It's something any 10-year-old with a malfunctioning pachinko machine as his computer and with a bad temper would do. You haven't proved to me anything yet except that you are a cowardly blowhard. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 03:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then y cant u block me? U try and try but i keep coming back, and just to let u know there is more then one? 85.153.34.105 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Try looking at user:troller101 and user:yourname now im telling u who i am if u all revert this then u want to fight.....
You don't have the balls. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 05:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't need to block you (though I don't have admin tools). You're making a big enough ass out of yourself that I can just point, laugh, and eat popcorn. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 05:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Sponge Bob Square Pants! Absorbent and yellow and porous is he.Sponge Bob Square Pants!
If nautical nonsense be somethin' ya wish. Sponge Bob Square Pants!Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish. Sponge Bob Square Pants! 31.7.59.227 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that song no longer bothers me, but thanks for playing Space Quest 5. You've been a real blast. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I should not do this but i just saw ur user box) Ur a homo,u use ur ass as a vagina u have a mangina u like it in the butt, are u the pitcher or receiver? 31.7.59.227 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the uke. wags tail proudly —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 06:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here i found something just for you, you many enjoy this, no need to thank me!
Ho hum. I've seen more interesting assholes on Xtube. (Besides, I'm the uke. I prefer seeing penii to bungholes.) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 06:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope fresh out sorry look on your computer you have some saved just like i have nude women saved on mine also you can always search ur self, but im starting to think ur bating me to get all my ips so they can block me.....nice try you all no more range blocks im smarted than that....78.159.98.117 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lord, no! Why would I do that when you've been so entertaining? :) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok who deleted all our pictures? and from looking at ur block log you are just as bad as me and you block yourself nowonder u like me we are the same, just u are a admin 178.162.133.102 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I relinqueshed my administrato bit July 11, 2010. Haven't been an admin for over a year. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 00:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and your are friends now can you please tell them when i leave you a message to not undo it, i dont get it I should report who ever is undoing it, they are vandalizing your page in a way, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.162.134.29 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I keep reverting them. It's a legitimate conversation; who are they to butt into it? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 00:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to avoid advertising that I like gay porn, since I'm rather particular. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not ignoring u my friend theses assholes did a range block ive lost like 75 ips now, so if we dont talk as much now thats why sorry about it too bad ur not still a admin u could unblock me.....oh well!70.36.121.18 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC) white-out personal attack (sorry Jeske) ~ AdvertAdam talk[reply]
I mean really so you have any say on anything? Help me out? the last Ip i just posted on within one minute i got blocked and i was not doing anything except talking to you, as a former admin help me out, u want my email? so u can tell me what to do?70.36.121.19 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want your email, and sadly I can't really help you out short of telling the admins to stop abbreviating the conversation. I don't have much clout with the admins anymore..... —Jeremy v^_^v Components:VSM 05:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jéské Couriano. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sabbath Rest Advent Church, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Already been PRODded and de-PRODded. If you want to delete it, you have to take it to AfD. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 06:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
