User talk:Prolog/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Semi's
Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
And more [1]. Thanks again William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks! BTW Do you know why my edit was removed? I just explained it on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia so if you can look my reasons over, I would appreciate it. I wasn't able to message the admin who removed it.--Louprothero88 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey. It seems like MBK004 somehow mistook your edit for vandalism. I'll leave a note on his talk page. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, State of Fear, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and warning
Thank you for editing Linus_Torvalds#Recognition but there are two administrators who think this is wrong. Who's right? Please see User:Yuzgen and User_talk:Yuzgen. Yuzgen (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Abecedare is correct; in addition to the conflict of interest, your website simply does not qualify as a reliable source. However, I don't see a problem with the information you added as long as a good source exists. I found one for Torvalds. Prolog (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Link to anybody but not them. Please! They stole my news without giving link back to the news source (my blog)! Then they apologized but didn't edit their news. See my blog post for the details. http://yuzgen.com/?p=117&lang=en Yuzgen (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see, that is unfortunate. Removing the Heise ref would not improve the encyclopedia, but feel free to replace it with another reliable source. Prolog (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Their version is the source of the reliable news and you edited nicely, so let it stay. What I learned today is "Big corporates are more reliable than one man.". Wait, that's not true for Linus Torvalds and Microsoft. Whatever, cheers! Yuzgen (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ford
Apologies. My understanding was that we based Wikipedia on authoritative sources, like dictionaries, not popular usage. However, I had not realised the extent to which the redirect was used. I will be more careful next time. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Glaciergate
Your Speedy deletion of the redirect Glaciergate could be questioned. As far as I see it was redirected to another article? Then it should go through a new redirect discussion. Can you recreate it? Nsaa (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Talk:Glaciergate#Why_is_it_deleted.3F_It.27s_sourced_.E2.80.93_redirect_to_Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4.23Projected_date_of_melting_of_Himalayan_glaciers. Nsaa (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Scibaby stuff
I've been watching the enormous number of Scibaby socks snap in and out of existence, and I keep seeing your name as the blocking admin. I was wondering how the process works, if you feel you have the time to enlighten me. Does a checkuser involve looking at the underlying IP and checking to see if it matches Scibaby? Thanks, and no worries about answering this if it's a hassle. I just couldn't find the relevant explanation elsewhere.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Checkusers indeed look at the IP information (see WP:CHECK). I'm not a checkuser so my blocks are based on behavioral evidence or a CU confirmation. The blocked and suspected socks are reported and checked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. For some general information on this puppetmaster, please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby. Prolog (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is the confidence in true positives derived from the relatively small number of appeals? Or are there many appeals?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep an eye on User:Jinnus and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. It looks as if the Scibaby socks are back on Talk:Global warming. --TS 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. I won't hesitate to semi-protect the talk page again if necessary. Prolog (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. In my opinion the discussion over the past week or so has been much more focussed on improving the article, and I don't want to see it go back to being a trollfest. --TS 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Prolog
I admit to you that i have been using sockpuppets. I sincerely apologize and will immediately stop. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Groupthink's talk page. Groupthink (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
the richard account is not mine though. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you unprotect An Inconvenient Truth
It's currently semi-protected until March 20, but I'd like to request an early unprotection as it is being considered as a FAC.--The lorax (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Template:Suicide possible WP:NPOV and WP:MOS violation
I looked at the discussion that was had in 2007 and I looked at the current way things are ordered in Template:Suicide and it looks like there has been some good faith vandalism. I'm unfamiliar with how it should look as anything that isn't alphanumeric looks out of order to me. Review it please. --Koolabsol (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- The sections were recently reordered "per WP:MEDMOS", which seems like a narrow view of the subject (definitely not vandalism). The intervention article was listed twice, but I don't see any major issues with the current look. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident semi-protection
Looking at the logs, it seems that on 12 January 2010 Climatic Research Unit hacking incident was meant to be semi-protected until 12 April, but that expired prematurely on 10 April due to intervening full protections. I don't think a semi-protection until 2 April is going to be sufficient - Scibaby has been at it for a long time now and his track record suggests that he will be back as soon as semi-protection expires. I'd suggest a longer semi-protection, perhaps 6 months. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be the case, although the article was just unprotected for nine days without any non-autoconfirmed disruption. Given that this article is on 1RR, I will go for a much longer protection next time, if another admin doesn't extend this one. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The lack of disruption was likely to be more the result of Scibaby being unaware that semi-protection had expired - like me, he probably thought it was still semi'd until 12 April - but he's shown remarkable persistence as soon as he's given the opportunity to disrupt... Thanks for sorting out the semi so quickly. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
User 68.189.95.211 vs striptease
Hi. Just to let you know that as soon as 68.189.95.211's ban lapsed they're at it agin - although at least this time they've attempted justification [2] for removing the pictures & video. I guess they didn't look at wp:notcensored after all. a_man_alone (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Slightly different IP, but I'd guess he's back: [3]
- Yes, that is definitely the same user. I gave him/her a block warning and will be watching. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Re:Date formats
Ah right, fair enough! I shall revert my changes pronto! Regards. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate Lock of Talk Page
You've locked out ip contributors from the Hockey Stick article, after blocking a registered editor. This is an inappropriate use of your tools, please re-open the article. The lock should never be used pro-actively.99.141.247.5 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article and its talk page were being attacked by socks of the banned user Scibaby. Like IP editors, these registered accounts were not autoconfirmed, which is why the semi-protection was very appropriate and indeed stopped the disruption. The talk page protection was about to expire soon so I unprotected it early. You can propose changes there and/or use {{editsemiprotected}}. Prolog (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good timing
Good timing on the Stovl/Scibaby block; I blocked and tagged the rest of that report and requested that a CU check for sleepers. Is there anything else that needs doing? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think you beat me to the tag on Stovl by just a few seconds. I think we're all done for now. Prolog (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Boogie metal
Is there any reason why you didn't contact me when you put the boogie metal article up for deletion? RG (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I presume regulars are watching their articles, especially if the page is recently-created and has been prodded (twice even). Prolog (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
More Grundle
Looks to me as if Magnum! This is all your fault! is another sock. It's fair to note that I'm not exactly uninvolved. PhGustaf (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely. I think all the currently reported socks are now blocked, so only a CU is needed. Prolog (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Observation
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| For demonstrating excellent observation skills in fixing really old vandalism which I missed despite undoing more recent vandalism 3 times. This was going to be a barnstar of diligence, but the anon who first pointed it out deserves the other half, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) |
Vandal alert.
Sorry to bother you, can you please block 202.162.216.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? This is one of another IP addresses now being used by the Indonesian misinformation vandal. Need your action ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also done. Prolog (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Although he's now using his own talk page for his further taunts now after Lear's Fool opened a sockpuppetry case. See his recent edits. BTW, the guy insulted me on my talk page while his abetting, but I decided to revert his edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also done. Prolog (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Striptease
You're right, we need more pictures explaining what stripping is. Maybe we can add some hardcore, uncensored xxx stuff into Pornography as well and you can contribute some of your home pictures to Zoophilia. It has nothing to do with "censorship," it's about not needing a dozen different pictures of naked women to explain what a strip tease is. In fact, I'm surprised you think we even need words when we could just make the article into a full-blown pop-up picture book. I'm sorry you think fixing your trashy article is vandalism, but that says more about you than it does me, and I couldn't care much less whether that article is garbage or not if you're going to claim I'm "in it for teh censorshipz" every time I make an edit. Have fun with your imaginary girls and Wikipedia cyber-dominance over us peons. 72.201.251.230 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- There were not "dozen different pictures of naked women." There was only one. You removed it and then continued to remove it again and again, blanking the lead image along the way. Your idea that Wikipedia should be censored for the protection of minors goes against established policy, which enjoys wide support within the community. Prolog (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mensa BE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mensa BE. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom case
because you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informing you of the arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
IP Vandal
Thank you for blocking User:88.26.26.159 User:80.31.248.45 User:83.39.9.248 User:79.146.111.65 User:83.59.244.54. He is quite persistent. Can you do more please? Eg semi protect Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, this has come up on my talk page (I blocked one of the other IPs earlier this week). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you on not applying semi-protection at this time. The large majority of anon edits to the article seem to be good, and this editor can be dealt with by blocking the new IPs on sight. I too have the article watchlisted so let's keep an eye on how this develops. Prolog (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Errors
Sorry. Mr. R00t Talk 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Unholy
Today there was actually the first correct (the whole history, complete lineups and real facts) article of that band, but you erased those changes. I'd like to know why's that? Ok, maybe text was not in perfect wiki shape, but you wouldn't have to erase it all, just edit would have been enough. In myspace (the source of that new information) the band itself updates the information, so that's correct really. That myspace site is also the one and only official website, before the new unholy.fi site is completely up. So you should trust that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matulaz (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I have already stated twice, the problem was that what you were adding was a clear copyright violation. Unless you are quoting someone, you can not copy-paste whole sentences from other websites. It goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. You can use the official biography as a source (see WP:CITE), but you can not copy-paste its text into the article, so you must use your own words. Prolog (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.
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)
Thanks (Scibaby)
For this [4] and others William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IP user you blocked
Hi, Prolog. On 16 June you blocked User:83.38.89.212 for 1 week for continued unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory. This user is back on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article editing as User:83.36.226.22 and continuing adding this conspiracy theory. Beagel (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Same user again[5], this time as User:81.38.219.43. Beagel (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Aggressive sockpuppet
Check out Mike's Nature Trick (talk · contribs). I've reported it at the Scibaby sock page. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not convinced it is Scibaby but certainly up to no good William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The user above was blocked several weeks ago for suspicious sockpuppet activity after I discovered that a checkuser was inconclusive because of the use of open proxies. I am going to forward you a message from Avraham; could you please review TND's unblock request? Thanks NW (Talk) 11:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
False positive?
I notice you blocked User:SezGruppen111. I don't think this is Scibaby - the edits don't fit the usual pattern (for a start, the edits are all pro-climate science). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not true, e.g. [6]. Most of them are blind reverts of me :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rest assured that it is Scibaby. The behavioral evidence is absolutely conclusive. Prolog (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: September 2010
I didn't vandalize it. I am the World Rally Championship fan and I add two more rally driver names that I recognized on List of World Rally Championship drivers. I'm serious. -- Videogamer13(talk). September 1, 2010 (UTC).
- Not serious enough to contribute to this encyclopedia, apparently. You're on your final warning, so don't do that again. Prolog (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, now I don't want to make disruptive edit again next time. But I want to tell about that rally drivers and would you guess who is that American rally driver debuted in 1995?
Here is an external link on World Rally Championship Wiki: [7]
The administrator of WRC Wiki have created that page and I help editing, and the page was not complete editing yet. --Videogamer13(talk). September 1, 2010 (UTC).
Let me know, I think Jonas Andromeda is the world rally driver too that I saw on magazine, he's the American rally driver, he drove a Lancia Delta Integrale in 1995, then he drove a Subaru Impreza in 1997, later in 2006 he drove a Sköda Fabia, and he leave WRC in maybe 2007 or 2008. --Videogamer13(talk). September 2, 2010 (UTC).
scibaby
who is scibaby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan climate gore (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:Scibaby. Who is Alan climate gore? Prolog (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing work in this area.
While I'm here: for some odd reason Scibaby seems to have gone off to Nokia - or at least I've tagged a couple of accounts for so doing. If you have CU evidence (or anything else) that indicates I've got it wrong, please let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, and same to you. Nokia as a target article is odd indeed, but (based on less odd behavioral evidence) you've got the tagging right. Let's see what a CU says. Prolog (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Any chance of long-term semi on James Hansen? One of the sock farm's favorite targets, and I think the prot log shows short-term doesn't work. -Atmoz (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deceased WRC drivers
Would you guess who is deceased WRC drivers? --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Thanks for your intervention in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's lately been the object of concerted unilateral editing by contributors who seem unwilling to secure a reasonable degree of consensus before (repeatedly) making changes. It's a good point at which to pause and take deep breaths! -- Jmc (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I actually missed the edit warring that had been going on there in the past few days, but good to see that the disputes are now being resolved through discussion. Prolog (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Henri Toivonen's death
Hi, Prolog. Did you know how Henri Toivonen died? --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
RE:Final Warning
I'm sorry, I don't do it again, and I never vandalize any pages again. Now I'm afraid for editing any Wikipedia pages, and I will reverting any vandalism. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you edit to improve the encyclopedia, you should have nothing to be afraid of. Prolog (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what is a hoax name that you have said to me on my talk page 2 days ago. Please give me the example but don't insert a link of hoax name. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
That driver names is truly hoax. Now I understand. But next time, I never promote a hoax name again. And if I see any vandalism, I always revert it. Thanks. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait... I want to tell you if anyone vandalize the page, I will revert it. Then I will talk to you to give them a warning. If they ignore a warning, you must block them indefinitely. Thanks. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A scibaby sleeper?
I was on recent changes patrol and came across this user: Wiki pv (talk · contribs · logs). It seems vaguely like some scibaby socks I've looked at, but I thought I would ask for a second opinion from a more experienced scibaby hunter. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not impossible but very unlikely. I can't say much more at this point. Prolog (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Template talk:Journalism
You idiot? it's talk page Template_talk:Journalism --Kaspersky 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- No. Template talk namespace is not the sandbox. Prolog (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
for alertness (years). -J. Sketter (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
115.147.229.238
Blocking 115.147.229.238 likely won't help. If you check the history of the articles that Special:Contributions/115.147.229.238 anon edited, you will see that anon makes the same series of changes to the same series of articles and then quits. At later time a different address is used. The only solution may be to temporarily--say 30 to 60 days--prevent anonymous editing to that group of articles. This may cause anon to get an account through which we can explain things better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm aware of this, but I think there are too many target articles. And since a CU said the IP range is too busy and MediaWiki still provides no quick and effective feature for combatting this type of abuse, reverting and blocking seems to be the best we can do. Prolog (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
[8] why? Email if not publishable please. --BozMo talk 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Block Me Please
Could you please block this account? It is the prior name of User:Hamtechperson Poker5463 (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I am Hamtechperson and I approve this message. Hamtechperson 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please block my account for period of 6 hours? I am Gtabigfan2010 and I approve this message. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I just ask why this edit to Donna Freedman was reverted? The character is leaving in 2011 so I thought this edit would be ok hence why I left it. Just being curious --5 albert square (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The user made a highly questionable edit to another article, similarly without a source, so I decided to revert both edits. Feel free to revert me if the edit was correct. Prolog (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK thanks. Just thought I'd check it wasn't breaking some form of Wikipedia rule and didn't want to tread on any toes :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Block policy
I am a registered user, but I often do not log on. My IP was blocked, but I do not know why. When I looked at the block report, it listed you as blocking me but gave no reason why I was blocked. I try always to edit in good faith and to meet Wikipedia's standards, but I am only human, and am prone two error. Why was I blocked? If it was unintentional, is there a way to lift the block?
Zach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach the Wanderer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the message you received? You may have been using an IP address or address range that had been blocked from anonymous editing due to vandalism committed by other users. Without knowing your IP address, I can't provide a more detailed explanation. If you e-mail me your IP (click here), I'll take a look at it. Prolog (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- That appears to be it. I've emailed you the info; I hope it helps Zach the Wanderer (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the mail. As long as I can continue my WikiGnome duties through my account, it's cool with me. May the Schwartz be with you. Zach the Wanderer (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Grundle
He must have gotten new socks as an early Christmas present, and is nice enough to share with us. He's been busy today. See Special:Contributions/Nck54. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Santa must have put this naughty boy on the wrong list. Blocked again. Prolog (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Think I spotted another - Special:Contributions/Tricks Are Not Treats. Look at the last 4-5 edits. Ravensfire (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind - Sceptre got him. Probably should just have done that myself - sorry to bother! Ravensfire (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
{{you've got mail}} On the same theme, unsurprisingly... BencherliteTalk 23:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I sent this before realising quite how extensive the sock list was, so filed an SPI report which was acted upon very quickly, as you may have seen. A couple more IP ranges have been blocked, so we'll see if that helps for a few days... BencherliteTalk 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Christmas was nice to Grundle, seems he found a new sock in his stocking. SPI opened. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blocking those IPs that keep adding TriStar Pictures everywhere. I just don't understand why someone would have such an obsession like that. —Mike Allen 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Finnish source for punker Maukka Perusjätkä, please
I did the English translation of [Maukka Perusjätkä]--'70's-80's chainsaw rocker--that now faces deletion. Could you assist with Finnnish source? Would be much obliged.Nhrenton 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
IP block
A while ago, you blocked 121.54.100.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a year as it was the 7th block on that IP. This individual is back on 121.1.18.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which only has a single week-long block in its history.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)