User talk:Closedmouth

It's too late for April Fool, so it must be real . . .

Closed Mouth blocks Nicole Will Suck Your Pole. Well, I laughed when I read it. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Faster than light

"As you wish"

Oh, no, I would have wished people DID use the discussion page. Did try to be constructive. Suggest better wordings. Suggest citations. I should add, even saying why they thought I was wrong would have been better than nothing! 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That actually happened on another article I contributed to, and although the wording ended up different than I would have done, I'm happy because what the other person posted was better than what I had.

Sandstein having blocked me, rather than the real vandals, I was content to let that stay as it was. But what I wish would have been that people be cooperative and constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Forgot the 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) which I'm sometimes supposed to use and sometimes not. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying to me. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I am pointing out is that the other people were destructive with their reversions. And they were not using the discussion page. I DID use the discussion page and urged others to do so too. Most people didn't even try to put in an argument saying why they thought I was wrong. I was the constructive one, yet I was the one blocked. Sandstein ignored that reality, and blocked me. Not only from the article, but even from discussion pages and at least some talk pages! I can't possibly fight the powers of wikipedia --- and have no interest in doing that --- but at least Sandstein's unfairness was here for people to see. And similarlly, your failure to correct Sandstein's unfairness is also here for people to see. 216.239.88.76 (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting. Or is it only the constructive poster who gets penalized? 216.239.79.180 (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

• News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos

• In the news: Wikipedia influences drug terminology, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup

• Features and admins: This week in approvals

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert

I don't know if you can block ranges, but can you block the 114.59.0.0/16 range? It is used by a long term IP-hopping Indonesia vandal who delibrately inserts misinformation by ridiculously connecting CBS, Digimon, and Resident Evil articles without any source to back up his claims. The range was blocked before, but after the block expired, the vandal began doing his modus operandi again by using the following addresses in just the past two days:

• 114.59.198.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.195.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He also used the following addresses, leading to the previous blocks.

• 114.59.196.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.191.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.207.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.100.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I hope that you take action ASAP before he strikes again using another address from within the range. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Range blocked for 31 hours. But you will be among the first ones to know once he strikes again within the range, or any other address or range. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible autoblock problem

Thanks for responding to the problem I occured. When I tried to edit a page today, I found that I has been blocked. The block was given on 2 April 2010 and already expired, and I success to edit at a page. However, two hours later, I could not edit any pages, stating I have been blocked again - but the block was given on 2 April 2010. Then I have a big question mark there. What's going on that a expired "autoblock" reoccurs at a past time? I have got an account-block, what related to the autoblock? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems the block has expired if you can post here. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Phyzix

An article that you have been involved in editing, Phyzix, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyzix. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)