User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 30
 | This 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. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Knock, knock
- Q. Knock, knock.
- A. Who's there?
- Q. Bear.
- A. Bear who?
- Q. Bare is better than not being able to go bare. (Loses something in the human world but very humorous in the bear plain of existence. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Block of Mcrfobrockr
Hi Tiptoety
I noticed your block of Mcrfobrockr, ostensibly as a sock of AtlanticDeep. While I have questions this editor's contributions in the past and am no fan, I wonder how you drew that conclusion. There is no mention of that user (or indeed anything recent) in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep/Archive.
Regards, Bongomatic 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
- I am a checkuser on Wikimedia commons and confirmed this as a sock of AtlanticDeep. I also spoke with a checkuser on this project who confirmed my findings. Tiptoety talk 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 03:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)
Courtesy note
Hi. Since I mentioned your name/activity at this AN/I (regarding another editor), I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not know if this is worth opening a full case or not, but this editor seems to be swapping between accounts rather quickly. One named sockpuppet in there is Jfernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it is to do with "Constant creation of Salt & Light Radio (and similar articles)". Since then there has been Drdindo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created the Josh Fernandez article (apparently the "founder" of Salt & Light Radio, and it does not take much effort to work connect the names of DjJosh and Jfernan to that) which was deleted at articles for deletion, and it has just been recreated by Pinoymusic10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There do not seem to be any active blocks on DjJosh so I am unsure whether a case is needed or any action needs to be taken, so I thought it simpler just to ask you here. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I went ahead and indef blocked all the accounts (including DjJosh). Bringing the issue here is fine, but for better documentation (and for possibly faster results if I am not around), filing a SPI case is probably the best idea. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
t:HTD
(Deletion log); 17:47:58 . . Tiptoety (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Hide the Decline" (Deleted because "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". using TW) - could we have it back please (again). It is in use at the current arbcomm case William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, my mistake. I have undeleted it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Please undelete, if that's possible, Talk:Joaquin Fuster -- an ongoing discussion at ANI (search ANI for Phoenixthebird if necessary) references it (and see note at the top of the Talk:Joaquin Fuster itself, which perhaps should have referenced the ANI in particular). Thanks. EEng (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Gracious! What fast service! EEng (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon? My Chinese is weak. EEng (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I consulted Google Translate as you suggested, but its only reply to my request was "You're welcome!" -- which is very courteous, but I still want to know what your phrase means in English. So big help that was -- jeesh! EEng (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Block of Naturalismo
Hi Tiptoety, you blocked my username and I sent an email to your user name that should hopefully reconcile this issue and get my name unblocked and the allow the fix for the issue I've been having with the incorrectly forwarding wiki page for "Naturalismo".
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.75.33 (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please post an unblock request on your talk page. Follow the directions on the block message. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitions of terrorism
I reverted your deletion of Talk:Definitions of terrorism, Article history from 26 October 2004 to 5 July 2005. The article is neither an orphan or dependant on a deleted article. See Talk:Definitions of terrorism/Archive 1#Preserving history of the original article. -- PBS (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit filter
Hello Tiptoety. I am here to ask what to do about malicious links, such as the one found at User_talk:Airplaneman#Why. My first reaction is to put it on the edit filter; if that is correct, may you please do so? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ Review? 03:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, an abuse filter would be a good way to go. I currently lack the time to set one up, but you can request one be created here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do some research on how to set it up. Thanks! Airplaneman ✈ Review? 04:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of others' on-point comments in a discussion
Please don't delete my completely on-point comments from a discussion. Perhaps you misunderstood. The nom, in the sockpuppet investigation he brought, is relying wholly on what he claims is "significant behavioral and circumstantial evidence".
A primary component of the gravamen of his complaint -- indeed, what he refers to as a "smoking gun" -- is his assertion that the two editors he is accusing both edited a particular article on an author who the nom characterizes as a "little-known author from Maine". He also characterizes that author as "'little-known', outside of very specific circles related to mining in Maine."
My entry directly addresses nom's contention that these are socks because they both edit an article of a little known writer, not known outside mining circles. This is nom's "smoking gun", and my entry directly addresses that.
You, in deleting another editor's comments from a talkpage (which is generally considered a stark wp violation), wrote as your reason "Unless you are presenting evidence or discussing the specifics of a sock investigation, do not comment." I assume good faith, and that you did not apprehend fully the above. For of course, without question, I was presenting evidence and discussing the specifics of the nom's "smoking gun" in his sock investigation allegation. My comment is precisely on point.
Under the WP:VAN discussion page vandalism rule, blanking the posts of other users from discussions is generally considered vandalism. My completely, without-question, on-point response to the "smoking gun" at the heart of the SPI nom's circumstantial case does not fall into any of the exceptions to the discussion page vandalism rule, which are removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., moving posts to a proper place, and removing personal attacks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- You missed my point entirely. But, that is alright. If you want to sit and argue with a single user on an SPI case page, then have at it. Just do not expect the case to be resolved in a quick manner. Remember WP:TL;DR. On, and by the way. As an SPIclerk I have the ability to remove any comment(s) I deem to be off-topic, so enough of that "vandalism" nonsense. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I know that your deletion was no doubt a good faith misunderstanding, and not intentional vandalism by any means. We've seen each other around to know that the AGF is well deserved in both our cases, I would hope. But the effect is of course the same as the effect of an intentional vandal -- it deletes pertinent discussion by others from a conversation, with the inimical effect of inappropriately tilting the conversation by depriving editors of the ability to see those comments. I agree that you can remove inappropriate comments (though I would say that that clerks do no have the right to remove completely on-point comments, that directly addressing what the nom has identified as the "smoking gun" at the heart of the nom's case. Anyway, I appreciate your forebearance.
- I have an off-topic question, btw, as to an idea I've been working on (with the nom in that SPI, actually) for expanding SPI. Would you be open to me running it by you, for your input? Many thanks.
- Happy Friday. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, run whatever you want by me. Tiptoety talk 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Great, tx. I'll update what I/we have (partly this is from a conversation I had with George in which he expressed support for the general concept, but don't hold him to any particulars in it, as I've developed it a bit). And post it as a new post. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, run whatever you want by me. Tiptoety talk 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Your thoughts ...
My personal (completely non-scientific) sense is that wikipedia editors include a disturbingly high percentage of socks. The percentage in contentious areas (such as those subject to arb sanctions) would presumably be much higher.
What might your thoughts be as to the following possibilities? Assuming technological feasibility (you may have a view on that). (There may be gradations here, such as "we can tell you if the same computer has been used within the past three months for more than one wikipedia account, and what those accounts are, but we don't have time to do more than that if dealing w/massive numbers of accounts):
Alternative approaches:
1) Check-user all editors.
2) Check-user all editors who "opt-in". And display a tag on their user page saying:
- a) that they opted in,
- b) were checked,
- c) the date checked (and that the check went back 3 months), and
- d) the results (if no other accounts were found, if other accounts were found but they were all deemed administrative and (if user agrees) what their names are, or if sockpuppetry was discovered).
- If nothing else, this would serve as a stamp of approval that the editor was willing to submit to the cu, and reflect the cu result.
- Perhaps, on highly controversial articles during controversial periods, we could restrict editing to editors checked within the prior three months. Much as we now often semi-protect articles during those times, restricting who can edit them to a certain "more trusted" group, such as non-IPs and established editors.
3) Check-user all editors who have been blocked or banned x number of times. Or, alternatively, blocked or banned x number of times in controversial arb sanction areas.
Because wp relies on consensus, socks are poison. In controversial areas of wikipedia, socks have an even more deleterious effect.
I expect edit warriors who have been banned/blocked, and who are running puppets, will be against proposal 3. But I think something needs to be done to decrease the socking.
Thoughts? Many thanks for taking a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- For starters, most of this would violate the Foundations Privacy Policy which all users with advanced permissions must follow. As for your overall idea that there are a lot of users sock, I would concur.
- Secondly, we simply do not have enough active CheckUsers to be able to perform checks on that many people (even if we just did it on people who were involved in some kind of opt-in program).
- Lastly, a number of CheckUsers already do perform checks on banned/blocked users a a regular basis to ensure they are not continuing to evade said blocks or bans. Tiptoety talk 07:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed comment
Hi Tiptoety, you removed my comment in an SPI case, and I was wondering if you could explain why. My comment was made in response to a comment by Epeefleche, in which they questioned why I described the author as "little known". My response was meant as an explanation for why I viewed the coincidence of them editing that article as extremely unlikely. Because the author is not well known, the odds of the two accounts in question being two independent editors, who randomly happened to edit it, is exceedingly unlikely - especially in lieu of other, distinct editing patterns they both display. Epeefleche re-added their commentary after you removed it, but (unsurprisingly) neglected to re-add my response to it. ← George talk 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The comments, both yours and his, appeared to be more content related than SPI related. Hence my removal. I will say though, that continuing to bicker back and fourth is, and will not accomplish anything. Often times less evidence is better evidence (WP:TL;DR). I think that the evidence that is currently there is sufficient, and that fighting over how many books a particular author has written adds no value to the case. That said, seeing as Epeefleche is insistent on re-adding the comment, you can re-add yours if you like. Tiptoety talk 07:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tiptoety. That seems fair, and I agree with you regarding brevity, so I've re-added the essential reasoning in a much shorter version. I actually suspect that a lot of the talk page commentary is meant to make the page so long that nobody will read it and consider the actual merits of the case. ← George talk 08:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Really???
You should know I hate "Copy and Paste" moves so I got pissed. Stay off my case and you should have read the page notice before dropping me a "dumb warning". Red Flag on the Right Side 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Telling people to "fuck off" in edit summaries and stating that you "hate them" is highly inappropriate, regardless of their actions. Tiptoety talk 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wow you act like im serious xDDD. Red Flag on the Right Side 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- How else should I take this? Tiptoety talk 19:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well I took my time to create a page notice for a reason. If your going to cry about it.... Red Flag on the Right Side 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- How else should I take this? Tiptoety talk 19:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wow you act like im serious xDDD. Red Flag on the Right Side 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fast
thanks Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Request
May you send this file into Commons, because I currently cannot due blokage? Alex discussion 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can use
{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}for that. Tiptoety talk 23:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)- That file seems to be fair use and I don't think such files are welcome on commons. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct. I didn't look at the file the first time around. Tiptoety talk 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, I left him a note and removed the move to commons template. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct. I didn't look at the file the first time around. Tiptoety talk 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That file seems to be fair use and I don't think such files are welcome on commons. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I am Slidr3
Sorry but the only way for me to respond to your message was to create another account. Let me explain the whole sockpuppet thing.
A long time ago (like almost 2 years ago or something) I made a bunch of different accounts on here (i often forgot my username/password, or sometimes I would use different accounts to edit different articles). Well I didn't know this was against the rules, but someone caught on and blocked me for six months or so. When the block date expired, I returned, but someone recognized the edits and blocked me again for sockpuppetry. Surely they don't expect to block me forever just for something like that....I am perfectly willing to stick to one account.
And as you can see my edits on these past couple accounts have been contributive. A while ago however I did get into a major fight with another user regarding information about Natalie Wood's death - I kept posting that Lana Wood wants her death case re-opened and cited her interview with CNN. It was reverted because it is against policy to make accusations against living persons (I assume he/she was referring to Robert Wagner). I also uploaded some photos that were copyrighted and deleted, but I don't see how could could be reason to block me.Rooac (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- This account has been blocked. Please post an unblock request on whatever account you want to edit from by placing
{{unblock|your reason here}}on its talk page and email me when you have done so. Please use the emailuser function. Tiptoety talk 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety I see that you just added reviewer permissions to Ash with the comment can be trusted with this. I'm curious what due diligence you did before adding this right bearing in mind that they abandoned wikipedia after being faced with a RFC accusing them of misrepresenting sources including to a BLP - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash. Are you sure that this is the kind of editor we should trust with reviewer permissions? Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- The editor does not have anything noted in their block log, has rollback enabled, and met the usercount requirement listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing. But, you are correct. I seemed to miss the RfC. Feel free to reverse my action. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you reviewed these pages before you deleted them (or if Tim Song has already talked to you about these off-wiki) but you should keep in mind the warnings at the top of that category. A handful were not indef blocked, or had been subsequently unblocked, etc. Using a script to simply mass-delete large swaths of the category is probably ill-advised. Personally, I think we should probably just get rid of that blasted category altogether - to properly clean it would be mind-numbingly tedious and of little benefit. –xenotalk 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Tim and I spoke. And I made sure to go back through and check for ones that were mistakenly deleted. Please note that of about 10,000 deletions I/Tim only undeleted 50. I would say that is pretty good. As for the category itself, I could not disagree more. Many of those userpages and/or talk pages contained hateful attacks, spurts of vandalism, and needless information. Not only that but 10,000 talk pages takes up server space, space that could be better used elsewhere. As for the deletions themselves, I am aware of the rules around CAT:TEMP and had a list generated that contained pages that did not include the words "sock", "abusing multiple accounts", "historical" and more. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Those can be deleted per G10. And surely you realize that deleting these does not save space (and in fact causes more space to be used)? That being said, since you're not deleting them indiscriminately (or are deleting them somewhat less indiscriminately), my concern is moot and further discussion can be done at the CFD. –xenotalk 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Request
Can you semi-protect my userpage and its editnotice? Thanks. Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 01:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
May I have my ban removed?
I asked for a 6 month ban (to lose weight) from Protonk (who seemed amused). Toddst used the occasion (of my remark to Protonk) to ban me forever. It's been a year and I lost 70 pounds and am ripped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.39.78 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea who this person is. I recommend you send me email from your blocked account and I will review the situation with liberal prejudice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have PMs. How can I send an email from the account. Plus I really want Protonk or someone else to look at it. I asked him to ban me, not you. You have it out for me. Prejudiced liberal. 72.82.33.69 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
SPI Clerk
Hi I was wondering if I could be a Trainee SPI Clerk under your mentorship. Thanks. When you wish to respond to this message please leave a {{tb}} on my talkpage. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- At this time I am not accepting trainees. You are free to ask other clerks though. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok then, thanks anyways :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
SPI case
I'm not going to file an SPI, especially not in this obvious case. He would create another account and continue... "Daccono" is User:Bonaparte and/or User:Iaaasi. The latest — very recent — blocked accounts are User:Karpatia1 and User:Zzzsolt. Additional note: the ethnicity of John Hunyadi was one of the favorite topics of User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte/User:Umumu.
By the way, I didn't revert his edit. This time. Squash Racket (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- For clarification, I was approached by Iaaasi who insisted this user was not their sock, and that reverting their edits as such was wrong. As such, they requested I pass along that they are more than willing to have a CheckUser ran on their account to confirm this. Seeing as he made such a statement, I thought it was worth checking out. That said, you clearly have more experience dealing with this user than I, so I will defer to your judgment. Cheers, Tiptoety talk
Your Adoptee Classroom
Hi Tiptoety, I'm planning to set up my own area for new users and adoptees, a bit like yours. I was wondering if you'd mind if I used some areas of your lessons for this page. (I'd mostly rewrite it but I'd still say something like based on rules by Tiptoety (talk · contribs) or something like that. Would it be ok with you?
Thanks!
PS: here's my joke to liven up your talkpage:
Q: What do you get if you cross the motorway with a wheelbarrow?
A: Run over.
WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you forgive me for what I did as Ms dos mode?
I am anti-vandalism. Can you please forgive me? T3h 1337 b0y 23:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleting shortcut.
Just want to be clear. Could you please tell me why did you delete the shortcut WT:WPVIET? I'm the one who redirect this into Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam and I don't think that I made any problem or mistake. Or If I did something wrong, could you give me a clear explain (I couldn't understand what Wikipedia:CSD#G8 mean in this deletion).--AM (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It means that there is no associated article/main page to go along with the talk page. But, seeing as it is intended as a redirect I went ahead and undeleted it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer
HI! I have applied for reviewer rights and was wondering if you would accept me as a reviewer. I put the application on my user page.Epicstonemason (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that I can't edit that page until tomorrow when my account is auto-confirmed. My account is only three days old right now.Epicstonemason (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you confirm my account for me at least?Epicstonemason (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What should I do to increase my chances of becoming a reviewer?Epicstonemason (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Edit. Well. See User:Mono/Welcome for some ideas. —mono 21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have been editing well for about four days now and my chances still look bleak. I saw people with thousands of edits being declined a position as a reviewer.Epicstonemason (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Random person who jumped in from Huggle) It's about quality of edits and not quantity. When I got reviewer rights I had less than 1,000 edits to my name. Make sure your contributions are beneficial, well-sourced, and neutral, make sure you know WP:CORE and then ask for the rights. If you don't get it, the reviewing admin should tell you why. elektrikSHOOS 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I created a page when I saw a red link for it. Is that a good edit?Epicstonemason (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Except for the fact it's up for deletion. monosock 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If I apply to be a reviewer and I get declined, as I probably will be, can I ever apply again?Epicstonemason (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you can apply again. How about you focus on something else for a little while though. Read through some of our policies, create a few good articles, do some recent change patrolling, and stop worrying about getting reviewer rights. You will get them eventually. Tiptoety talk 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice and I am now reviewing recent changes, but I haven't found anything yet. Should I continue to only search edits made by anonymous users or is it only a myth that named users don't vandalize?Epicstonemason (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Signature
Thanks. Your sig. is pretty cool, whats the code for it if you dont mind sharing? Shabidoo | Talk 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup>. Obviously, you would need to replace my username with yours. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Pez Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Thanks. If you could, could you throw a nice hefty rangeblock on that guy too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- You wanna joke? OK....three guys are walking down the street, two guys walk into a bar, the other one ducks. *rimshot* Love that joke. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am already have a CheckUser take a look. And thanks for the laugh. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You and You're Welcome. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Range is too big, and too active. Just gonna have to play whack-a-mole. Tiptoety talk 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Darn :( Well, if things get to hairy on my talkpage (I will be going to sleep soon), feel free to indef semi-protect it and I will create a "IP talk page" (seems to be the rage of late) when I get up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and if you could, I would also watchlist User:PMDrive1061's talk page. This Pez guy seems to like hitting that page often. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Darn :( Well, if things get to hairy on my talkpage (I will be going to sleep soon), feel free to indef semi-protect it and I will create a "IP talk page" (seems to be the rage of late) when I get up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Range is too big, and too active. Just gonna have to play whack-a-mole. Tiptoety talk 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You and You're Welcome. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am already have a CheckUser take a look. And thanks for the laugh. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for handling Pez and Mickey. Though when I saw the SPI by Pez, I just had to laugh. Elockid (Talk) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. Just for info, these are socks of a very long term editor. Tiptoety talk 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ben Alekzsander Williams
Knock knock
Whoes there ?
Ben Alekzsander Williams again !!!!!!!
Ben Alekzsander Williams ? the one whose page got deleted in December 2008.
The same only now known as Kameelion
Sorry , not much of a joke but it was the best I could do. ..and I wasn't sure how to handle Kameelion but it looks total self promotion, non-notable etc. etc. - not even a debut album. Velela Velela Talk 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
AHH! BIG OWL!
That things scares the beJesus out of me. I recommend a Big Furry Cow, much better and kinda cute. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good point...will definitely keep small rodents away. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow!
Wow! That was fast! And easy! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
SPI
Here's that SPI I was chatting with you about yesterday [2]. Be warned that it's a bit on the long side, but this guy is good at covering his tracks CU-wise, and he got off last time because I didn't present nearly enough behavioral evidence. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okey Dokey, I will keep an eye on it. And yes, that is on "the long side." Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he's back again, as User:Mou2010, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mou2010 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Results?
Any new toys? –xenotalk 20:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at Special:ListGroupRights, you will see that there are additional rights assigned to the "reviewer" usergroup that are not assigned to the "administrator" usergroup. That said, it didn't seem any different when I gave myself reviewer. *Shrug* Tiptoety talk 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Request denied
I tried, and I thought I had pretty much spelled out what they needed to do, and they couldn't do it--so I understand your response perfectly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to go ahead and unblock him, then that's fine with me. –MuZemike 13:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- User was still "on hold" today. As Mike is ok with it and you seem to be on a break I went ahead and unblocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please help
In spite of your warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHobartimus&action=historysubmit&diff=373210968&oldid=372044537) and even the sockpuppetry accusation was proved to be false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daccono), the editor User:Hobartimus still reverts my work (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hunyadi&action=history). What is wrong here? --Daccono (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Portland Parks Photo Blitz!
|
<font=3> Want something to do this weekend? I propose a WikiProject Oregon weekend photo blitz! Let's try to fill up the List of parks in Portland, Oregon as much as possible by getting out and taking our own pictures or finding ones online that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The pictures uploaded will not only benefit the aforementioned list, but they will be used for future articles about specific parks and will fill up the Parks in Portland category over at Commons. Get your cameras ready! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|---|
hey
ur main page is the best i ever saw on wikipedia. beautiful owl. :D. k one joke before leaving:What does a blond have to do with the universe? thy both have black holes :D .-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you helped out here, I was wondering if you'd be inclined to block the latest User:Joehazelton IP address. [3] Thanks! — goethean ॐ 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about 68.255.2.164 (talk · contribs), 76.202.244.76 (talk · contribs), 76.202.238.59 (talk · contribs), and 76.217.118.46 (talk · contribs)? — goethean ॐ 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the block
Thank you for blocking User:66.4.233.14, I stumbled upon their quick mayhem of multiple vandal-edits and was having trouble keeping up. Always learning new things re:Wikipedia and am curious about the Wiki-rationale for blanking previous warnings on an account-page when the IP is blocked. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome, new CheckUser
Congratulations, your CheckUser rights are activated and ready for use.
Before use, please ensure you are familiar with our CheckUser policy and our privacy policy
The list administrator for checkuser-l has been informed of your new status and will allow you to join the list. When performing a checkuser with potential cross-wiki complications, please use the list to coordinate your activities with checkusers across other projects.
If you use IRC, please contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy and #wikimedia-checkuser.
Again, congratulations. Kylu (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Tommy! 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats buddy. MBisanz talk 13:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for identifying the Sockpuppets causing trouble on the Vera Baird article. Was really getting fed up of their edits.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello
 |
Tiptoety has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, Kind regards and happy editing, |
 |
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia a better place 
and a warm welcome back to Hersfold!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 11:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
Rollback...
Hi Tiptoety, I saw that you were one of the administrators willing to grant rollback requests. I would like to have rollback as I think that it could help my edits. I have plenty of edits and I feel it would help me a lot. Many thanks, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Done - Tiptoety talk 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Recent unblock request
I try to keep an eye on my recent blocks in case someone requests unblock, but I do appreciate the notification of others to help make sure I stay abreast of that. I've taken your consideration up and given the user another chance. It looked to me like an attempt to dodge WP:3RR, but honestly the user's explanation doesn't seem unreasonable and they were quite up-front about it. - Vianello (Talk) 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet case - Graham1973
You just classified or at least marked and blocked indefinitely Graham1973 as sock-puppet of King kong92, can it be possible you had a false positive? He is known already for many years inside the Orbiter community, and there actually no overlap in the contributions of greengobby92 and him, as you have usually for sock-puppets of one and the same person & brain. The evidence chain appears very weak from what I can see, but I also have no access to the full evidence data as non-administrator on WP, that you based your decision on. Would you mind taking a closer look at the case? Urwumpe (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. It is possible I made an error. I will take another look. Tiptoety talk 17:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for re-instating me.Graham1973 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Sent you urgent email. LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete this SPI?
Why did you delete this SPI?
[4] I opened a SPI case against a topic banned user who had repeatedly created several socks to violate his topic ban, this was at least his third sock he used to violated his topic ban, and now everything is gone. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of all of that. Please check your email for my response. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sent you a question. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)