User talk:Morgan Leigh/Archive 1

Gangs[edit]

Hello Morgan. The problem is that the reference is by the gang itself, and thus may not be considered to reliable, and perhaps not encyclopedic. I will post this to Australian WIkipedian noticeboard to garner more opinions. Thanks, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, I didn't realise that you had posted here until after i had replied to you (see your talk page). I expected any reply to be on the relevant subject talk page. It was only because you hadn't posted to the subject talk page that I posted on your talk page. I hope you have read my comments on your talk page. A couple of questions; What makes you think that the link to the gang's page was added by a gang member? Even if this reference was added by a gang member why does this lessen its validity?

Morgan Leigh 03:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the information verfiying the gang is by the gang itself. I'm not saying that you are a gang member, supporter or sympathizer.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that you did mean to say that I was in any way affilated with this gang. You didn't answer the question as to what it was that made you think that the info verifying the gang was posted by a gang member? Neither did you answer why it was that if this was the case it made the information any less valid. That's like saying that if I am in a given political party and I add a link to that party's web site then that info is not valid.

Morgan Leigh 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of Dion Fortune[edit]

I've taken this mediation case; please feel free to ask me to give it up to someone else if you feel that I'm unsuitable. Before I begin, I'd like to clarify that there isn't any evidence on you to be presented. Now, I'm not accusing you of anything and please do not take it in a hostile way, but I need to be sure that anything like this won't come to light later on in the process. Please respond on my talkpage; thanks. —Xyra e l _{/ 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

All I'm asking is that if I asked the ip for evidence, what would he post? If you are able to do that, you show great responsability(SP?). —Xyra e l _{/ 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

All the evidence is in the history of the pages in question. I am not sure what else I can tell you apart from what I have already posted to the Dion Fortune mediation page. Have you reviewed the history of the pages in question? Shall I repair the damage the user has done to the history pages?

Morgan Leigh 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - it'd be great if you could give me some diff links too. Thanks. —Xyra e l _{/ 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Please see the discussion on Dion Fortune mediation. It would be great if we could keep all the discussion one one page.

Morgan Leigh 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.185.57.48 please do not continue to delete, or edit other user's posts on talk pages. I have requested mediation regarding this issue and I request that you do not edit this page or my user talk page any more until mediation is undertaken.

(Also posted to Talk:Dion Fortune)

Morgan Leigh 05:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation abandoned - See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21_Dion_Fortune Morgan Leigh 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not excessively revert edits on the basis that it is a differing opinion. Do not post speculation. Do not post historically baseless nonsense. Do not use Wikipedia to create fanpages. More reverts without cause.

Posting personal information about other users of Wikipedia is an attempt to assasinate their credibility (Wikistalking).

DO NOT post my ISP address without my permission!

Mr. Leigh, I have tried to reason with you in order to show you a different point of view because the Dion Fortune page clearly reflects your admiration for her. However, if you continue posting my ISP address without my permission, I will consider legal recourse. Just because my ISP address is listed in the history, DOES NOT give you the right to repost it.

I have been the target of hackers in the past, but that doesn't mean that I'm just gonna crawl under a rock and die. I still have a right to communicate on the internet, but your actions are jeopardizing that. Please cease and decist.

DO NOT post my ISP address without my permission!

The above post was made by user 67.185.57.48 who never signs their posts Morgan Leigh 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the user is blocked for 6 weeks, since they made use of a mass of sockpuppets while blocked initially. --InShaneee 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not TOR[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Morgan Leigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

88.198.252.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

TOR exit node - This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies is currently prohibited. If your ISP has misconfigured their proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies. (Multi-RBL lookup • Sandbox test edit)

Blocking administrator: Raul654 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Port scan shows port 80 is still open on that IP address. — Yamla 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked with the stated reason that my IP is a TOR exit node. In fact it is not. I did email Raul654 but got no response. You can check if an IP is a TOR exit node at the TOR key directory at http://moria.mit.edu:9031/tor/ my IP address is 88.198.252.148 and it is not listed at the above URL, therefore it is not a TOR exit node. Is it perhaps the case that wikipedia is only adding IP's to a list of alledged TOR exit nodes instead of checking regularily against the key registry? It is not the case that once a TOR node always a TOR node. Thanks. Morgan Leigh 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (I am not an admin). Your IP, 88.198.252.147 according to the message is listed as being gwde4mmx at [1] (unfortunately the page and the page you provided both seem to be down at the moment). Maybe the page is outdated though. Best of luck! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the decline above the reason was that port 80 was open on that IP. This does does not make it a TOR exit node Morgan Leigh 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have changed parameters of the block to only disallow edits by unregistered users. - Mike Rosoft 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Mike Rosoft 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]