User talk:Only/Archive 15

Welcome to my talk page! I tend to reply to messages directly on here, so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep conversations organized. I reserve the right to modify excessive signatures left here.

Archives I − II − III − IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI - XII - XIII - XIV

Hello

Hello either way Only! I am interested in programming a bot on Wikia. How exactly could I do that? --Spidey665, 23:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No clue. This is Wikipedia, by the way, not Wikia. For Wikia questions, go somewhere that isn't Wikipedia. either way (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sig

You need to fix your sig mate, you're still linking to your old pages--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I forgot I had a "custom" one in there. only (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

ODB++

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for your careful explanation when I mixed up 3rr violation and vandalism during the ODB++ edit dispute that I allowed myself to get sucked into. Woz2 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD nomination

Hi, is there anywhere where I can request speedy deletion? I have put a CSD tag on this page and request deletion for it. Thank you. Spidey665 23:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

I just wanted to personally thank you for defending me here. I felt quite threatened by his/her comments. I have another favor: Could you ban the user indefinitely, please? Thank you so much! As I see you already blocked him/her for a week previously, I won't pester you for more. However, if the situation and the user's edits call for one, then it is completely up to you if you want to block them or not. 71.146.8.5 (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Still...although Spidey did something wrong, do you understand what you did wrong? --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And Spidey was blocked for a week previously for socializing on my talk page, which has nothing to do with what happened today. --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

==============

Hi Only, Thank you for the unblock. I will be collaborative and careful now. I will also go thru the lessons available. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, Only. --Spidey665 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologize...just go read some policies and figure out what you're doing here. only (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, though. Spidey665 00:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Spidey665, if you're still here, see my comment at User talk:71.146.8.5#Sorry. 71.146.8.5 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Block of 216.56.4.46

216.56.4.46 (talk · contribs) is Wiscnet: Wisconsin's Research and Education Network - I've added the educational template, but I'm wondering if a week's block will be enough to prevent more vandalism as it is a school. My feeling is no. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP's edits seem to be more recent...if it was a little more wide-spread/active over a longer period of time, I'd consider a long block right now...but I have no prejudice to you extending it if you feel fit. only (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion

I'm sorry, I didn't explain that User talk:75.6.237.63 and User talk:71.146.8.5 are the same user. Can I replace my comment now? 75.6.237.63 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It wasn't clear when you removed it that you're the same...it just appeared to be a random IP coming in and removing it. only (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Again, I'm sincerely sorry for the major (but common) confusion. 75.6.237.63 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your comment at his talk page, though, as it comes across as "grave dancing" on a blocked user. only (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What's “grave dancing”? And yes, I did see that. 75.6.237.63 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Grave dancing=taunting/baiting a blocked user. Your comment, especially the way you placed a talkback and struck it in the same edit, plus the header with its strikeout can be seen as that so it's best to just leave it removed. only (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with the Wikipedia policy Do Not Insult the Vandals? 71.146.8.5 (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hi Only, I am awarding this barnstar for your patience and for your words on User talk:Spidey665 – good job. Best, Bryce Wilson | talk 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry

Hello, Only. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sorry about that, Only. --Bryce Wilson | talk 10:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Pan American Games

Putting false results, removing a part of a template making it appear as a red link isn't considered vandalism? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this edit is a "false result" considering it was an update to the chart that you eventually restored yourself. Some of hte other things look to be done in error, but it does appear he/she is acting in good faith. only (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Please see the new sub-section of an existing section: WP:ANI#response, where you are mentioned. LadyofShalott 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Colofac and Amshomjudg

Given their edits, and their comment on Colofac's talk page, it seems likely that User:Amshomjudg is Colofac editing through his indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved already. only (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing the template! Secretlondon (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Trollish IP

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

• Thanks for your due action there on the talk page... man, talk about someone so intent on looking for bad luck and running straight into a wall, all at the same time, eh? Cheers~!

Just sayin'...

This same message is on my talk as well.

Since I can not edit anymore, I am going to have to get an admin to do it for me. SInce I am also on the Acepedia, (Ace Combat wiki), I couldn't help but look at the Ace Combat:Assault Horizon page. You need Spooky 01 in the Task Force 108 Section. Janice Rehl flies an AC-130U callsigned Spooky 01. OK, bye. Solowing106 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You know what, I looked at it again, and I found a whole slew of mistakes. Any chance you could turn me loose just so I can edit the Assault Horizon page, and then block me again?

AN

I started a thread here regarding an editor you blocked. Not being familiar with the situation, I thought I'd ask you for your thoughts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Only. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 17:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

recent threat

you have threatened to block me for actions which i did not take (something about Warriors article covers). i appreciate the intent of your actions, but as i understand it, IP addresses can change or be shared. is there some way to confirm who the culprit is before making threats to them?

i'm barely computer-literate & i don't know anything about the warriors articles to which you refer. i know nothing about the codes required for editing text on this site, & in fact, i suppose that there is a very good chance that even this message will be incorrectly created to get to the intended person.

thanks for your time (& now, because i read "Sign your posts on talk pages: 68.255.105.249 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)", I will sign off as:),

68.255.105.249 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:58.6.141.54

I'm going to ask you politely if you will not deal with vandals then please avoid ARV. I don;t know for how long you have been an admin or how familiar you are with vandal dealing so please use your tools elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate the feedback, I've been an administrator since before you even had an account here and will continue to deal with vandalism related issues. You reported a user who had only one warning (a level one) and had not edited since then. At the time, my decline was more than proper based on our procedures here. I see now that the user was committing similar edits under another IP address. If you had linked that in your original report, I would have been able to investigate and take action earlier. I had no clue that this was a returning vandal, so I had nothing to go on other than the three edits that existed on this account when you first reported it. only (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you block this user?

Hi, I would like you to block ProsperwellFinancial for having a promotional username and creating promotional pages. Finealt (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to come back and say I blocked the user and deleted their pages. Thanks for the heads up, only (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Why was the discussion closed? Nothing was resolved, nor their conduct further looked upon, especially after being told not to talk about me personally on Wikipedia? Is this how Wikipedia is now run? To not hold up justice? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "justice" you're seeking, but no personal attacks took place. He was close, but never actually committed any. The discussion was dissolving into a rehashing of the commentary about the dispute, not about anything that administrators needed to take action on. The most appropriate venue for that is DRN, the talk page of WP:SOAPS or the article talk page. Nothing is needed administratively at this time. only (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I feel it is. This user also attempts to personally attack me and has in the past. Nothing was resolved and this user refuses to ever discuss civilly unless around an Administrator or never at all. How do you suppose we go into fixing this? Because I've tried on the soaps page (they commented once and never again), and the talk page didn't go anywhere, that's why it went to the soap project. I feel personally attacked by this user once again. livelikemusic: ^{my talk page!} 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel attacked, but looking at it again, I do not believe he has actually committed any attacks. Again, your best bet for resolution of the year/date dispute is to take this to WP:DRN. only (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

all he is doing is causing trouble for me, all he does is complain, doesn't do much That to me is a personal, libelous attack. I don't know how you don't see this. I keep feeling like Admins here defend those who shouldn't be defended, after repeatedly going against what they've been told not to. They've done it before this instance. Doesn't that matter any? Or is that over-looked too? They were warned not to speak of me or on my talk page, they've done so repeatedly. Shouldn't that be reason for some kind of administrative action? I'm just trying to find out what is allowed to be passed by Admins and what isn't? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If he has been warned by admins in the past, then go to those admins and say "I think he's committing those issues again, what do you think?" I'm not taking any further action on what's already occurred here, so your best bet is to turn to those admins or find someone else who's active on Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active. only (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I did, but they're not thoroughly active anymore. I want you to know I'm very disappointed, once again, in the administrative powers here at Wikipedia. Once again, you've failed to meet expectations and standards I feel you guys should be held to. Best wishes and happy new year. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but it is what it is. only (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think if someone feels they're the victim of a personal attack, you can't really tell them that they're not, and action against said attack should be taken accordingly. –anemoneprojectors– 00:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to look into it further, AnemoneProjectors, and take action if you see fit. I certainly won't object to you taking any action you see fit, only (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick thank you for helping me resolve the situation regarding my block. Wyatt150 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you're able to stick to the guidelines and become a productive user! only (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

World number 1 male tennis player rankings

Hi, you blocked the World number 1 male tennis player rankings article per Fyunck(click)'s request but just before it went into effect an edit sneaked in that should be reverted to get to the last known good version by Fyunck(click). This leaves the 2013 spot blank (neutral) per his request. Can you revert this diff and redo the block? Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the edit by the IP and put it blank. only (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thx!--Wolbo (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for your Info

Hi Only, Thanks for taking the quick action on the two different User:Ι ΑΜ ΝΟ ΤΑΧ ΒΟΥ accounts. In the meantime I had opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:I AM NO TAX BOY (same editor with two same username accounts) in response to the situation. I just thought to let you know about this :) Regards. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really have anything to add...it looks like Hitro has it figured out: that one of the usernames was spoofed by using non-English/Latin characters. only (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding I AM NO TAX BOY

Hi, I was a bit disturbed on what I AM NO TAX BOY said on his talk page after you blocked him with this edit. He said "Yeah you blocked me once but I still managed to edit and vandalise afterwards didn't I??!!" From this, I think that he might be a sockpuppet. If you think my suspicions might be valid, can you try to open an investigation? If it's too much work or you think I'm a nutter, you don't have to. Thanks! TheTriple M 22:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

See the thread/ANI thread directly above this one. There were two accounts with similar names. only (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Ryk72

Hi! Do you know the newbie wants to talk to you? IMHO, Ubikwit and STSC should have politely asked the newbie that s/he should not join the SI RM as it was a very controversial topic and not a place for newbies, strike out her/his vote/edits there and leave. It seems to me that the user sounded reasonable and civil enough on the RM. I understand that the user knows WP well, but is it difficult to give the user a chance? Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that. I'll let Secret and/or ArbCom handle that case. only (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Kshar24 is a sock of SSA786

I hope this is the correct way of managing this, as I am new to getting help from an administrator when a user is unwilling to play by the Wikipedia rules.

I note that on 28 December you blocked SSA786 from editing for a period of 1 week for violation of WP:3RR and personal attacks/general disruption regarding Mariam-uz-Zamani. Now a new user Kshar24 is making the same changes to Mariam-uz-Zamani using the words with the same poor grammar and spelling. Thanks. --Chewings72 (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, definitely appears to be a pretty obvious sock. I've blocked it indefinitely. Thanks, only (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I may need your help

Hi Only, you had helped me build a page and you cleaned the sentence to be more objective. I had received a message about ExposNation being notably recognized to have a page after it was mark for deletion. Anyhow, last night the page was deleted for soapboxing I believe. Just not certain what to do now. Thanks you had been very helpful from the beginning this is why I tougth writing to you.

Pdesnoyers (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My only suggestions are that you create a draft version of it in a sandbox like User:Pdesnoyers/ExposNation draft; once you think it meets our guidelines, you can ask the user who deleted it what they believe needs to change to make it more appropriate/objective. I don't know enough about the subject, though, to help too much. I don't think you'll be too successful, though, because many will be skeptical of whatever you write as you are a representative of the group. Good luck, only (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas

The version you quote is much funnier, but if you look at the edit history, you'll see that Lihaas corrected the typos before you posted your reply. I assume that his correction and your edit happened at almost the same time, and they both went in without a conflict, but it does make your comment look kind of strange. If you prefer it that way, that's, of course, your prerogative. Just thought I'd let you know my thinking. I actually thought I was doing you a favor. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We probably edit conflicted...I've ec'ed with him a few times now because of his tendency to spew things out then revise. I plan to leave it because it just demonstrates the incoherence that's coming out at times. only (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and I apologize for interfering.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Only. You have new messages at Ujjwal234goel's talk page.
Message added 10:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ujjwal234goel (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

hi

i just did a minor edit, but many users are reverting it for politcal reasons. i thought wikipedia wasn't for political use?

but i am sorry i won't do it again revert warring but why am i only the one who has done this fault? The others are also guility right?

82.132.219.87

Re User talk:82.132.219.87 - have you checked rangeblocks? 82.132.231.226 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I dind't; I see now there is. But, based on the reason for the block, I'm not going to consider unblocking. only (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How can details of the rangeblock be found? 82.132.228.147 (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I found details of the rangeblock - how do I get (from there?) to the reasons for the block? 82.132.246.217 (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You can talk to the blocking admin, but all I see is "block evasion" as the reason. only (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's my point - the only way to prevent such evasion on this network is to block the entire network. Blocking bits of it is absolutely pointless - it won't have any effect whatsoever on anyone who wants to evade it (as my edits here are surely demonstrating), it'll just inconvenience and discourage everyone else. 82.132.245.117 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, clarification of the above here: User talk:JamesBWatson#O2 range block. 92.40.248.104 (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gabriel

Talk to user:Trijnstel about it; I'm not really clear on all the details myself. DS (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Only: please contact me privately if you wish to know more. Happy to provide you the related info. Trijnstel_talk 19:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Trijnstel...sent you an email in regards to it. Thanks! only (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Only!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Only: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Ruby Murray 21:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Heads up

Hello, Only. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw your thread on ANI after I made the block...was wondering if it was the same user. Hoping he doesn't continue! Sorry you have to deal with it. only (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I feel slightly embarrassed and confused because as far as I remember this person did revert the last time after the final warning. Why? Because I got one of that red light stuff your edits has been reverted warning as soon as I posted the final warning, and I said to myself that's it. He did it again. Weird enough it looks like she/he did it before. And we had a very weird discussion about it at the Vandalism report page about it. Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries...like I said, this person at least seems to have some good faith intentions, so I didn't want to punish them right away. only (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, as you were before Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. The four articles the editor has been bringing to multiple forums are all, as the editor knows, under ArbCom sanctions. A bit ironic and I am considering whether something else needs to be done. (I'm waiting in part to see if the editor will respond to repeated requests to explain how certain sources the editor used back the claims they were used for, but I'm being ignored - not sure if I'm dealing with someone just not understanding how to use sources or something else). Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Hopefully ARBCOM can make more sense of the evidence than I can! only (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user

This blocked user has returned with this sock. He is doing same things. Although I am not seeing porn uploads this time, he is uploading web images as his own work and linking them. Also unwanted edits to articles. Abhi (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked it...thank you. only (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ohconfucius_reported_by_User:Lihaas_.28Result:_Warned_.29 Here's] a blatant case of violation of the 1RR rule. Wheres the block?(Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).

You'll have to take that up with the admin who declined, not with me. only (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Got to Believe

Can I please request if you could put again a Protection for this page Got to Believe as Persistent vandalism is getting rampant again. Thanks in advance. Polmags (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Polmags

Welcoming

I understand your point. While I was not optimistic, I hope that somewhere and sometime these people might reform. Letting them know that we are not hostile can't hurt. It they choose to self destruct, so be it. They are judged on their conduct, and are the authors of their own destiny. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Catching socks

Considering this, it may be wise to add flows.com, flows.org, and DailyFlows to an edit filter that trips an alarm, at least for the next few weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not great at utilizing edit filters, so you might want to request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested or at WP:AN/WP:ANI. It's not a bad idea to try to implement one. only (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to Make Username Change

I put in a request on my talk page to change my username acceptable to the wikipedia guidelines, books2000, but I'm wondering if I haven't done it right? The system only recognizes the username to be changed at the moment. Greyrootsarchives (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and follow the directions there in order to have your user name changed. only (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism , /block

Thank you for your intervention. It is great to have people like you around!--Jondel (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. only (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Assistance in Dealing with hostile WP Admins Drmies, and Bishonen

First of all, congratulations on a most impressive profile page.

I received a message from "Only" in my email box, but there was no content in the message. Now, after having looked at your profile, I am contacting you for your help and advice concerning hostile WP admins who are threatening me.

Here is the story, which you can also read on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Livingengine1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

The Wikipedia entry for "Stop Islamazation of America" is a screed, and is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. This is largely the doing of partisan editor, Roscelse.

When Roscelese began including statements to the effect that Pamela Geller inspired Anders Breivik, I deleted those statements based on Wikipedia policy concerning libel.

WP:Libel states in part -

" Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. "

So, we had an opinion of someone other that Breivik being presented in the voice of Wikipedia, and it was quite legitimate to delete this libelous statement without being subject to the 3RR rule.

Breivik never said this about Pamela Geller. He never wrote he was inspired by Pamela Geller. There is nothing in his manifesto about being inspired to kill by Pamela Geller.

Nevertheless, Roscelese enlisted the aid of WP admin Bishonen to have me blocked for edit warring.

I argued my case forcefully on my talk page, and was accused by Wikipedia admin Bishonen of "POV pushing", and that he will act against me on this basis. I am not engaging in "POV pushing". When I demanded an explanation for his statement, and threat, instead of answering me, Bishonen accused me of sockpupetry. Again, I have NOTHING to do with this. I am still waiting for an explanation from Bishonen.

A second admin, Drmies, entered the discussion making a weak argument for Geller inspiring Breivik. I crushed him with three strong arguments, namely:

Breivik expressly states in his manifesto that he was inspired by Muslims to kill.[page 1352 of Breivik's manifesto]

Breivik has also confessed from jail that he is a Nazi, and his mass murder was designed to discredit the counter jihad movement. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html

Finally, no less an authority than Wikipedia states that Breivik was planning to kill in 2002; Geller did not start blogging until 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Planning_attacks

Drmies' response was to dare me to bring him up on "charges" at the ANI bulletin board, but that I had better "duck on the way out". I am taking this as an attempt to ambush me at the ANI bulletin board.

I now have two WP admins threatening me, and looking for pretext to act against me for simply following WP regarding NPOV, Libel, and consensus.

I have no interest in bringing anyone up on charges, or censoring them, or anything of this sort. I am not playing games.

It is clear to me that I need friends here at Wikipedia. Any help you can provide in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Livingengine1 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved, sorry. My edit to your talk was simply to disable the unblock requests because you were no longer blocked at that point. I have no interest in your case; I was just performing an administrative upkeep task. only (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello. In brief, I really would like Rollback. Any single editor would need one look at my history to see that it would benefit me 90% of the time with little else outside of it. At the moment I am engaging in donkey work like every other vandal fighter and recent changes watchman/woman and they are permanently beating me to the crunch. I'm not complaining or saying it is a bad thing, quite the opposite. It is just double frustrating when you go through all the motions only to find it was done one minute ago by someone else with rollback. I have to hit History, select the last good version which is before one vandal's eight consecutive contributions, choose it, save it, and insert a summary; by the time I've got there, job done, my contributions would have more than doubled had this not happened. So I am not that inexperienced. Even warnings, I now template my own, but do you know how often I try to issue one only to meet the Edit Conflict page because an editor-with-tools has got there first? If I knew he/she were on the case, I wouldn't have started. As I said, donkey work for nothing. You probably missed this discarded reply[1]. So, from anew, Rollback for Grade X? --Grade X (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my previous decline. Not enough experience, not enough maturity/appropriateness in addressing vandals as demonstrated in edits such as this, this, this, this, this, or this. I highly suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. You clearly should not be granted the tool at this time. only (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at these edits by User:Lockean One.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] They seem disruptive. His talk page is littered with requests for civility.[9] Thanks. — goethean 14:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Each of those examples was a plea by me for other editors (especially Goethean) to be civil and stop making false statements about me (and other editors). Please look at the posts I was responding to in those diffs, including Goethean calling me a troll, vandal, etc along with his rude and obnoxious falsehoods. They violate several Wikipedia policies not only for incivility, but for incessantly discussing the person instead of content. This tactic has been used by Goethean (and a couple of others) to overwhelm and derail legitimate discussion about article content for months. While I have been guilty of incivility myself on occasion, I have never once stooped to the level Goethean has recently, evident in Goethean's own diffs above. Lockean One (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User you blocked

A user you blocked indefinitely is socking and changing the article in question again. I don't know enough to take any action. See commons:Category:Sockpuppets of DerekFlores002. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for false ban appeal

It turns out that I happened to be using my ZenMate software that put me behind a proxy while I was attempting to edit. Thanks anyway. SK Moose 01:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

libel & edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey are you an admin. I need your help. I removed libel from Nibiru cataclysm. I have explained why this is the case in the article's talk page. Wiki's policy on WP:ALIVE states that this should be removed, and anyone re-inserting this should be blocked. But then talk & ous re-insert libel & then say i'm the one edit-warring... I have been accommodating to them, and now Kheider accuses me of what he's guilty of. Help. He keeps edit warring & putting the libel I took off (& I explained so in detail in the article's talk page). He's put it in yet again. Please help. see article's history Emphatik (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've locked the page. Go to the talk page and settle this over this next week here. I don't have a side either way in this battle; I'm just locking the page to prevent further edit warring on the page. only (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. But you see what they did. I was more than accommodating of Kheider & Serendipodous' points of view. Explaining WP:ALIVE requirement of neutral point of vew in detail. And yet they accuse me of edit warring, when I was removing libel, pointing them to wiki's policy & being patient. And I told kheider he could get blocked for keep on re-inserting the libel as per wiki policy. so he reports me, instead. I'm new & trying to learn things.thank you so much :) Emphatik (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bring this up on the talk page...I don't have a dog in this fight so there's little point in making your arguments here. only (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. thanks. I have elaborated it in detail in the talk page. thanks again. cheers :)Emphatik (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Admin Only let you make changes to a page with zero consensus from any editors. Congratulations Emphatik, you have successfully gamed the system! -- Kheider (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have told you where to seek administrative review of my actions. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked for disruption. only (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually where do I seek a review of your actions? I doubt I will take you up on that as it will not directly solve the Nibiru problem. But since I feel your ruling is harming Wikipedia, I would like to know what my next step would be? -- Kheider (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the noticeboard, you're welcome to seek review at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Be mindful, though, that comments like this with statements like "Admin Only just let you get away with 9 reverts" could lead to blocks for disruptive editing on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT grounds. I told you where you could go to seek review; to throw out these accusations of me letting him "get away" with something is inappropriate; I protected the page to prevent an edit war which is well within an administrator's discretion. only (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All you've done is put this debate in amber. Emphatik has demonstrated no attempt to compromise, and without either a wide consensus against his views, which is unlikely given the obscurity of the topic, or someone blocking him, this will not end. Serendi^podous 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you're like to get review of my actions, you may take your concerns to WP:ANI or WP:AN, but I stand by my actions. only (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Only. I am sure things with Emphatik will have to escalate as he interprets Wikipedia rules as he wants to until he is severely outnumbered. I added the comment about the 9 reverts simply because someday I will have to demonstrate how this "one article article editor" has been gaming the system. I do not trust him to be sincere and am disappointed in Wikipedia. I take it you have little experience actually editing fringe topics. -- Kheider (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SevenAveChamps

Hi there,

Unless I'm misreading things, it seems you unblocked User:SevenAveChamps in late November. The user (who has used a variety of user names) has made several unhelpful edits to Navarro College in the past, and recently made this edit [10]. I'm not sure about the appropriate course of action, but I thought I'd let you take care of it. Thanks. TheMightyQuill (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...I've blocked the account since it's editing with COI issues. only (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Only! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

salt

Just a heads up. You marked the RFPP request for Gokul Gautam as done, but the bot says "Page has not been protected." APK whisper in my ear 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...wonder what happened. I think I might have forgotten to switch from "allow all users" to "allow only administrators" when I pushed submit on the protection. Thanks for the heads up. only (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard Sherman

Regarding this [11], thanks for catching it. What a stupid error on my part! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already replaced your warning to the user with a welcome template. only (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard/Incidents

You should post there for user preference, that you have blocked 3 users. Under a relevant section or you can start a new. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Did it as you were posting! See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Winkelvi.2C_Lips_Are_Movin.2C_MaranoFan_all_blocked_48_hours. only (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct that no topic-ban was ever handed to Winklevi, only a block for edit-warring? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know, no topic ban has been created or implemented. The block was given to 3 different users engaged in an edit war across several articles. only (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking for advice on new page patrol

Asking for the yes of an uninvolved admin; would you mind looking? I've tagged Roots Smokehouse for AFD, since the prod was removed. Should I have A7'd this instead? I chose not to do so because of the sourcing and neutral tone. On Lyn Beazley I chose to tag for COI and Copyvio instead of deleting (it was apparently speedied earlier today as copyvio) because the subject might possibly pass the bar for WP:ACADEMIC, and I thought the pedia would be stronger WITH the page as opposed to without it. Would you agree with my calls, or would you have just speedied both? Appreciate your consideration. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've speedied and closed the AFD for Roots Smokehouse. No true claim to notability. It's often tempting to left an AFD like that run just so we can have a definitive decision from consensus to point to when the user tries to recreate it, but I think the consensus would have been inevitable on that. As for Lyn Beazley...my thought is delete it as a copyvio, then (if you or someone else is willing) restart the article from scratch as a stub and let it be expanded from there (without copyvios). only (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for both and for your explanation. I was feeling shy about CSD tagging; per BITING I'd rather get it right and make mistakes in favor of inclusion as opposed to the alternative. I've made the case on the Beasley page creator's talk page that while the subject may be notable enough for inclusion, the editor needs be aware of the reasons it was deleted twice. Again, thanks. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mirro Aluminum Company

I copyedited the text and added the info about the boat division back in. I removed any weasel words and condensed it considerably. I hope that I changed in enough that there should not be any problem. Nyth63 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just left a message at your talk page...unfortunately, your last edits have been close paraphrases of the original texts and had to be removed. only (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I will re-write the sections in my sandbox and repost later. I am looking for other sources and have found that the info from the company web site is wrong anyway. The have the year wrong. It was 1958, not 1956. I will cite the source for this. That will teach me to be so lazy. Nyth63 02:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just had a chance to review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and it appears that your interpretation was a bit heavy-handed. I will quote two sections:

Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.

and:

Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing.

Since I DID provide a citation at the end of the section, and it was just a series of dated events, it appears that my only error was not including a leading phrase such as According to the MirroCraft website.... Which is something that you could also have easily edited in rather than just arbitrarily deleting the whole section. Nyth63 04:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Truffle Butter

Can you move the page Truffle Butter (song) to Truffle Butter. It doesn't need discussion especially since Truffle Butter redirects to The Pinkprint. It is uncontroversial and I would need your help in order to avoid a cut-n-paste move. Thanks. MaRAno ^FAN 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC) :I can't at the moment since I'm on mobile and don't like to do more complex tasks like that while on mobile. If you're not able to find another admin to do it in the next few hours, I' should be able to. Let me know if someone else does it for you. only (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no one fulfilled it while I was offline, I've made the change. I've also updated a few links to it. only (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98)

I'm guessing that this log entry: 09:01, February 7, 2015 Only (talk · contribs)) protected Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98)‎ ‎[edit=templateeditor] (expires 14:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC))‎[move=templateeditor] (expires 14:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)) (Edit warring / content dispute) (hist) was a misclick or accidental selection since WP:PINKLOCK says This protection level may only be used on high-risk templates and modules and possibly in rarer cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree. This is a new protection level^[1] that replaces full protection on pages that are merely protected due to high transclusion rates, rather than content disputes. It should only be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection. You're not the first to make this mistake (I've caught and notified others in the past), but please fix this as soon as is reasonibly convenient. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, not sure what happened there...meant edit=sysop but must have hit templateeditors without noticing. only (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Like I said, you're not the first. No worries. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding rollback permission rights

You denied my request for the rollback permission right due to the fact that I didn't meet the 200 edit requirement, I now have met the 200 edit requirement and I was wondering if you could revisit the request. Thanks in advance. k_scheik (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of MaranoFan

Hello, Only. I was wondering why you blocked fellow user MaranoFan from editing Wikipedia. Replacing JPEG files with PNG files is very common, as PNG files are preferred over JPEG files while uploading cover artworks, as the recommended format is 300px PNG for a cover artwork. Thanks! (Please ping if replied), — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahnah4 (talk • contribs)

He was persistently uploading files that went against policy. You can't see his deleted contributions, but between Feb. 1 and Feb. 10, he made over 100 edits to approximately 60-75 unique files which were tagged and eventually deleted by several different users and admins. He was warned numerous times and his only real response to the issue was to ban people who warned him from his talk page. The persistent violations and the flippant attitude is what caused his block. only (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and that is really unacceptable behaviour. So in the end, is it still acceptable to replace JPEG files with PNG files? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 05:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatem El-Nashar

You declined unblock on this user because he was promoting himself. While that in itself is blockable (when warnings and requests to cease and desist are ignored or declined), I unblocked because he had been mistakenly blocked for his username as well (and he has also proposed to edit articles about Egyptian foreign policy, generally). A real name is never a violation of the username policy, no matter how the user edits. Keep that in mind for the future. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Frequent removal

Back to their old ways not long after the block expired. Replacing images that are perfectly fine with uploads that are of an arbitrary size of 300x300px – even if this makes the file size/dimensions larger than the previous version, or if the original image was not a perfect square. Warnings with links to policy have been ignored, talk page messages have been blanked, and it's apparent that s/he is just going to continue making disruptive uploads despite the concerns of others. Has clearly learned nothing from the last block. Would you mind taking a look into this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Vouching for Chasewc91's observations regarding MaranoFan and the same issue with images. In fact, he was edit warring over it here [12] and tag-team edit warring with Joseph Prasad yesterday at Taylor Swift, leading to the article being full-protected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Adding to the list now, is MF hounding my edits and making disparaging remarks about me at other editors' talk pages with whom they have no recent editing connection [13]. Like Chase said, he hasn't learned a damned thing during his month-long block. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Add #2 And is now back to harassing me on my talk page.[14] He was told back in February to stay off my talk page after he edit warred and tag-team harassed me there with Joseph Prasad - both with his account and with an IP address. Again: hasn't learned a thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Winkelvi has a disorder due to which he edits in favor of someone for long periods of times and he is currently in a team with Chasewc91. Also, Taylor Swift's article got protected due to Winkelvi edit warring on the page. Please don't entertain the misrepresenting user who has had issues with me in the past and is just extracting REVENGE. MaRAno ^FAN 05:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Only: I have learned my lesson from the last block. Removing jpg and replacing with png is wrong (as it discredits the original uploader). But CD covers are general square right? I want to inform you about Chasewc91's contribs. Almost ALL of his contribs in the last 24 hours are designed to irritate me. Deleting files I upload, Unredirecting redirects I create, tagging ages I edit for deletion (or as stubs). Which they profoundly admitted on my talk page yesterday. They also go from discussion to discussion opposing me. This is harassment and definitely not allowed (and I am not the only one it is occurring with). They are also desperately trying t block users who edit against their will. Please look into this, admin. Also, Chase is also uploading images of sizes he prefers. Something that is strange as my images were perfect squares, (most suitable for infoboxes and also of suitable size to prevent tarnishing). Don't preach what you don't follow. They actually just yesterday replaced a jpg image with a png one. However, I am the one reverting users who make such illogical changes. MaRAno ^FAN 04:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Winkelvi, lets not have a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario. You edit warred enough on Taylor Swift and got blocked for it and your Aspergers had nothing to do about it. After seeing this I truly believe that WP:REVENGE applies. Coming to MaranoFan and Chasewc01. May I ask you why is it that you people feel the need to reupload or different resolution images? There is no difference between jpg and png, except the latter taking larger space. MaranoFan is no more in fault than you Chase. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I didn't say a word about my Aspeger's, and I don't know you at all IndianBio, so keep your personal comments about me to yourself as they are out of line. Next, you can think WP:REVENGE all you like, but it doesn't apply. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

IndianBio is a very reputed editor, so take their advice, Winkelvi. MaRAno ^FAN 05:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Check above, "Winkelvi has a disorder due to which he edits in favor of someone for long periods of times" and it applies too since you are part of the same edit warring team that you think MaranoFan is part of. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what the hell that comment from MF means. What "disorder"? What he said has nothing to do with Asperger Syndrome. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't you dare call me MF, we all know that abbreviation has many meanings. MaRAno ^FAN 05:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The remarks were not disparaging but thoughtful and in justification of your actions. You should be thanking me. Also, don't stray from what my block was about, it was for images. Also, please refrain from language like "damned" and keep it civil. Also just stop calling me MF at this very moment MaRAno ^FAN 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not as unconstructive and free of time as Winkelvi to sit here just trying to get others in trouble. I am going to go off and edit constructively. However, Winklvi is supposed to maintain distance from me. Trust me, I also no may fancy swear words but just don't use them yet. MaRAno ^FAN 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I go to sleep and wake up to a dramafest on my talk page. Please got settle your differences somewhere that isn't my talk page. I'm very tempted to block the lot of you for your actions overall, with File:You Can Dance Madonna.png as a prime example. only (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I love the smell of thinking you are doing the right thing by coming to an administrator for help and getting nothing but threatened with napalm in the morning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to sort through this drama. Again, I think the best way to help the project right now as an administrator would be to block the three of you for your persistent bickering and edit warring. Take it to WP:ANI if you feel it's a major issue. only (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that instead of sorting through you'd opt for issuing a punitive block? It seems to me that such a block would not be preventive in regard to all the others commenting except for MF (who has continued to upload large photos even since this discussion started). Not trying to challenge you, just trying to understand what you're saying and why you are saying it. As far as ANI : nothing good ever comes out of that snake pit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WV, Only has said they don't want to deal with this, so let's leave it at that. An ANI thread has been opened if you, or anyone else, would care to discuss. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The actions at the Madonna file are just one example of a pattern between you all that is on-going. It would certainly be a preventative block to prevent further drama and edit wars that have disrupted multiple aspects of the project. only (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All I can say in response is that I think you are missing the finer points. But I guess that's to be expected when one chooses not to sort through a mess. Good day. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:ScrewHue

I note that you unblocked ScrewHue so that they might be allowed to request a username change. Please note that this user is presently under investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDevNegi. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Hickmott

Hi, if you have a moment could you check recent deletions on the above article? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden the recent revisions to the article. Please be VERY careful when you revert to make sure that what you're restoring is proper. There was a major BLP violation that you restored with one of your reverts. I will do my best to talk to the editor. only (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And thank you too. Denisarona (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Block notice for Irshadv096 (talk · contribs)

You typo'ed your block notice on Irshadv096 (talk · contribs), so I redid the notice for you. It is signed under my name, which is probably fine, but you might want to sign it back under your name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Odd typo I made on that! only (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryguyrocky

I agree what he did was wrong, but don't you think indefinite block is a bit too harsh. He is not as harmful as other vandals. Looks like some kid. I feel six months block would be enough. He should get at least one chance. If after that, he starts doing the same thing, then he should be blocked indefinitely. He should be blocked for six months along with a warning not to make any funny unblock request during that period. --C E (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If he's "some kid," I don't think in six months he'll have developed the maturity and competence needed here. He's utilizing Wikipedia as a game or social network site. He made 7 edits to articles in 225 edits. Unblocking him in 6 months would add nothing to our project so far as I can see. He's welcome to consider a standard offer, but I don't know if that'll work in his case. only (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you about AHLM13, you were right. He has a nice history--C E (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed site ban for User:MaranoFan. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think 6 months is excessive

I respect someone has to make the call, but I was hoping for a block of more limited duration on User:Joseph Prasad. If the user and I formulate an appropriate unblock request, would you be willing to reduce the length of the block? BusterD (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At this time, no. I think 6 months is appropriate. For him to be so quickly back at 3RR after a month block expired and while still (in theory) under a 3 month 1RR ban and for him to now be blocked for the 6th time since January suggests that he's not going to be a net gain to the project in the near future. Six months is the length of a typical standard offer for many reasons, and I think utilizing the length of the standard offer is appropriate for this case. only (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that obviously you're/he's welcome to post an unblock request at any time and ask for administrative review; I'll, of course, read over and consider any request and would also defer to any other admins who choose to look into the requests. only (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)BusterD, I commend you for being so willing to work with Joseph. And, even though he thinks I'm a terrible, awful ogre who hates him and is out to get him - the truth is I want to see him succeed. I started working with him on articles in January. Then it turned into dealing with him in articles just a week or two later that same month. It then became all-out war with he and another two editors harassing me on at noticeboards by filing bogus reports and placing bogus warnings on my talk page. And then the seemingly endless edit warring, over and over again at article after article, along with the snide, immature edit summaries, hounding of edits, and so on. It's only escalated and he's been given chance after chance to turn it around. Like I said at 3RR, I've made my mistakes here, done and said some stupid things, but nothing is sinking in with him and he's just not showing positive changes in behaviors or attitude. I think he can be a good contributor. But not now, even with mentoring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand his block log was concerning , but I tend to agree with BusterD that 6 months seems obsessive given the circumstances of this report. In this specific case, there clearly was a 3RR violation, but mostly removal of unsourced content, with only two clear reverts. I'm not convinced he realized he had violated 3RR, though with his block record, he should really be more careful. I also think it's unusual that Joseph made no further reverts after being warned on his talk page [15], yet the editor who warned him brought to an3 anyway, although, I suppose it's a moot point now since Joseph's indicated he doesn't plan to return after six months. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BBMC: He knew what he was doing. He's had the policy explained to him time and again and with as many times as he's intentionally and excessively edit warred previously, there's no way he wasn't aware of what he was doing. And, as has been pointed out, he is still technically under a 1-revert restriction. He's not new to this rodeo, he knows how it all goes down and just didn't give a damn. I hope after thinking about things, reading more on policy and watching the edits of others more experienced and wiser, that he will come back in 4-5 months and ask for his block to be lifted early. It may not happen, but it's worth a try and doing what it takes to convince admins he has learned from his mistakes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fire Island

Could you nip this account in the bud while you're at it? Thanks for your help tonight. BusterD (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done...certainly appears to be the same user. only (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Someone might not be dropping that stick just yet [16] Calidum T|C 15:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryguyrocky is back

Ryguyrocky was blocked by SilkTork and talk page access revoked by you for pretending to be an administrator and playing a game of giving welcome message and barnstars to accounts created by himself. Now he is back with the account The Pancake of Heaven!‎ which edited the talk page of Ryguyrocky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryguyrocky&oldid=656919900#April_2015

The Pancake of Heaven! is editing userpages of large number of blocked users. Are they have meat connection, or they are all socks of old user who comes back after three months? This is another sock User talk:The Pancake Emperor. There must be other sleeper accounts. User:DanTDM behaves like Ryguyrocky but blocked as someone else's sock. They are a group of kids having meat connection.--112.79.38.202 (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• What??? Who's User:Ryguyrocky? I was looking at some blocked user pages and a cool user page, and added some stuff, and used the formatting for User:Jimfbleak. ?? What did I do?

And The Pancake Emperor is not a sock, he had the name "Pancake" in his name so I called him brother. That's not a problem. And who are you? Lemme talk with you through this at a convo. The Pancake  of Heaven!  06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Or maybe User:Ryguyrocky was my brother. I'll ask him...

But more than this, why are you accusing me? The Pancake  of Heaven!  07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sayak Bepari

Hi, I'm trying to understand this[17] and I am not getting it. I see two inappropriate edits, trying to delete Koimoi, aside from generally positive contributions. I take it the user created a page on himself. Surely indefinitely blocking this guy is overkill (or am I missing something?). Curro2 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not able to see his deleted edits. The bulk of his edits have been not only producing autobiography, but also linking to a website he owns and creating the article for that site (see Haalum and Haalum.com for example). Additionally, he's not indefinitely blocked. He's blocked for one month. only (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

block appeal removal.

thanks for removing my block appeal, due to the block having expired. And I have a question: as you are aware the block expired before the appeal was dealt with, but I still have some issues regarding the block. Are you aware of any action I can take, if I still consider the block to have been unfair and wish it dealt with? I don't wish to make any trouble for the blocking admin, as I'm sure they acted in good faith while blocking me. But, as the block is a visible and permanent record on my account, I do wish to contest the actual block, or at least clarify a few things. Any suggestions? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there aren't any actions you can take. There have been very, very rare cases where blocks have been removed from block logs by developers, but those have been in the cases of extreme abuse or bad faith by the admin. Basically, in cases where the admin has "gone postal" and had their admin rights removed while going down in some sort of blaze of glory. only (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. I didn't agree with it, but it most certainly wasn't a case of an admin abusing their power. I just disagreed with their decision. Thanks for the reply and info. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Short sockpuppet block

Is there a reason why you only blocked the sockpuppet User:Diamese for a week, instead of indefinitely per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking? The account was created after the apparent sockmaster User:Aktent was blocked, so it seems like straight block evasion. (If there was some doubt about the user being a sock, they've since restored Aktent's rambling "birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians..." to the Zootopia article after waiting for their one-week block to expire.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, they've since been indef blocked for continued vandalism. --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong about your timeline. Diamese created the Aktent account as can be seen in Special:Log/Diamese. I blocked it for a week and blocked the socks indefinitely. We do that often when the edits haven't been totally disruptive. only (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, must have misread things, should have double checked the logs before asking. Thanks for clarifying. --McGeddon (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Busasu

I think it fairly obvious just from the content that this is another sock of Glorifier-- see the article history for Carola Insolera Since you did that block, I leave it to you to do this one also, DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain of it. Note that Glorifier was the one to request deletion. Doesn't seem to match up with the editing habits of Taokaka (talk · contribs). You're welcome to take action if you're confident, but I don't see it yet. only (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

American Pie (song)

Thanks for your protection of this article, but surely the protected version should be before the edit warring i.e. the status quo? Otherwise you are taking sides and enforcing one opinion over the other? BTW, on reflection I perhaps shouldn't have bothered with reverting this wholesale removal of referenced material, but still feel that it was for discussion at the talkpage, rather than a unilateral removal. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

see meta:The Wrong Version. I just protect it in the state it happens to be in. only (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually if you see the talkpage, it is now acknowledged to be the right version, so you got that wrong ;) With a loud laugh! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I heard Satan laughing with delight the day I protected the page. only (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

IP user 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:3C04:6D34:811A:453E

Hi. You recently blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:ED22:291E:D653:7BFC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and later @Spencer: blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:A8D7:2FAD:90C9:9017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. I believe they are the same user and that now they are 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:3C04:6D34:811A:453E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All of them, for example, have made similar disruptive edits related to Kung Fu Panda and Emily Deschanel.

I have reverted at least some of their edits. Some of them were obviously disruptive and some were ambiguous edits that had unsourced content. Politrukki (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it looks like they are the same user. I've blocked the new IP. only (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a new one with the same MO: 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:18A4:4B72:94C3:1D18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks in advance. Politrukki (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection of David G. Hartwell

Thanks for your prompt admin response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of South Korean idol groups

I have seen that you had declined my request for full protection of the following pages

• List of South Korean idol groups (1990s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of South Korean idol groups (2000s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of South Korean idol groups (2010s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

But if you see via the pages and logs that there has been constant disruptive activity pretty much every day. Alicia leo86 (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The last revert I see on the 2000s is on January 18...January 11 for 2010s...October 28 for 1990s. DOesn't seem too disruptive to me. only (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What?

What's with this? Yes, I know it's not an active block request, but so what? Inactive block requests show up correctly after bing dealt with. The "nowiki" fix looks very kludgey and inelegant to me. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's nowiki'd because it wasn't ever decided upon. It was just expired. Nowiki-ing it allows for people to still read the comment contained within it and doesn't force a decision of "accept" or "decline" from an admin. only (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Nevertheless, it is an inelegant solution. Is there no alternative? --Pete (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. If you find one, let me know. But reactivating it as you did the first time isn't what we should do. only (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Questionable IPs

1. Special:Contributions/176.221.34.226 (Portugal)
2. Special:Contributions/103.1.149.90 (Kuala Lumpur -- might be a web host)
3. Special:Contributions/106.185.46.30 (Linode host in Japan)

Per a thread at User talk:Bgwhite#Can you have a look?, it appears to me that #2 is the same person as #1, who you recently blocked.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:106.185.46.30, User:188%4!9.92, User:176.126.71.182 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Block, Semi). Most of these could be the same person. If you agree that all these are fishy, it might be worth submitting the list of them at WP:OP -- there is only a finite supply of web hosts that people can use as open proxies. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandal report reply

You may have missed my reply.

• 2607:FB90:844F:8FA5:0:21:2816:A001 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Warned, persists, disruptive. Red, hot and now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC) And continues to vandalize. Oddly, when you click on "CONTRIB" it doesn't show his latest edits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it's still vandalizing? Even the page history doesn't show any other edits by them since 13:54. I'm curious as to what you're seeing. only (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest diff The simian picture he earlier inserted in this article was disruptive and insulting. It should not be tolerated. Tries to make us look like racists. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Best regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, are you sure it's still vandalizing? You added on to your report saying they're still vandalizing and for some reason those edits aren't showing up. But the one you linked was from 13:54. So, I'm failing to see where it's still vandalizing. only (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe so. So far as I know that was the last one. In any event, I still think the chimpanzee picture is not amusing and deserves negative correction. But all I can do is report it, and I've done that. You own it now. It's all yours. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked it, but I still don't see where you're getting this idea from that it was still actively editing 2 hours later and the edits weren't showing up in contributions. only (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dickfuck234

They are now vandalizing their talk page after you blocked them. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 21:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI suggestion

Thanks for your suggestion. I will report him to ANI, if he continue disruptive editing. But don't you think that he deserve a warning by an admin at least? Regards. 176.219.129.115 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it from ANI and see what others think he needs. only (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you very much for the rapid help at AIV. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't even see him at AIV. He was (for some reason) commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Delaney (footballer), an AFD that I nominated. Only after my block, when I went back to my watchlist, did I see the comment from the helperbot at AIV removing him from there as blocked! only (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you use monobook?

Your talk page header greatly resembles it.