User talk:Peacemaker67

G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please be civil).

Informal portrait of the editor as an young man

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alpine chough

Can you unprotect Alpine chough? It was vandalised solely because it was the WP:TFA. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5).

I am being harassed

Hello there. First off, thank you for locking up Christopher Reeve so we can have good discussion. I hope we can have it resolved.

More importantly, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has started to harass me. When I first reverted his edit, he called me "idiotic," then "a pain in the ass." Recently, he said on his talk page that I "knew nothing" and am "ignorant." I gave him a gentle reminder to be courteous, which he deleted, and said that unexperienced users like me shouldn't be giving reminders to experienced users like him (I'm not even new). I told him nicely that just because I am "new" doesn't mean I can be called idiotic and other insults, and that if I am harassed, I have the right to give him a reminder. I didn't want to bring this to an administrator, so I tried to make peace with him my saying that we could always debate on the subject's talk page, without him throwing insults.

He then left this threatening message in my talk page:

"I just wanted to drop you a note to let you formally know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks.

I have no choice but to bring this to you, an admin. I will continue to nicely debate on the Christopher Reeve subject, but I am extremely uncomfortable with BMK being so hostile. I will never attack him back. As an administrator, please help me.

Thank you.

--Andymii (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, if you want to make a complaint about BMK, the appropriate forum is WP:ANI. But just be aware that when you make a complaint about another editor your own behaviour will also be scrutinised. You were very fortunate that I didn't block you both for edit-warring. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This all seems rather stale, so I will keep my comment as succinct as possible.

While the reaction to BMK's edits/comments might have been a touch unsuitable, it seems pretty clear (from block history/previous edits) that BMK knew exactly what he was doing and which buttons to push, to provoke a reaction. Not reacting is always the best solution, but what with editors being human, there will always be someone who will take the bait he provides on an almost daily basis. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I don't have much more to add. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For wielding the mop with great effectiveness! ;) œ™ 08:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I had no idea you were running for admin, which is the only reason the vote is not 185-1 but only 184-1 - still not exactly a cliffhanger... :-)

I meant to title this "Late congratulations", but since it comes almost three weeks after incredibly late congratulations, I suppose this is OK too. :-) GregorB (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gregor! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Hey there! I blocked 185.84.211.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) before I saw that you had commented the report here. Just wanted to apologize in case you think I'm deliberately stepping on your toes. For what it's worth, I think this is a fairly obvious school/library-type IP, hence the block rationale and length. Is this okay with you? m.o.p 12:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I'm slowly getting a sense of which ones to whack and which ones to be kinder with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding - didn't want you to feel you were being overruled intentionally or something. In cases similar to this one, where we've got an IP vandalizing in short bursts over a long period of time, we can figure out the chances of it being a shared IP by looking at:

1. Time of activity: usually, this will fit a certain pattern. In our example, almost every edit over three months is performed around 1300 UTC. The city the IP is out of (Montreaux, Switzerland) is UTC + 1, so this puts every single edit (even the ones occurring around 8 and 11GMT) during school hours. Also, we only see activity on weekdays, not weekends, and nothing over what's typically the holiday break.
2. Edit content: this is usually the easiest to pinpoint, but school-age children typically vandalize pages in a uniform, identifiable fashion (blanking, simple graffiti, number changes, etc.)
3. Pages being vandalized: you'll often see the same page get vandalized over the course of days (in this case, Geography of Russia).
4. And, of course, sometimes the school's ISP will make it easy and actually identify the school by name on its WHOIS lookup (didn't happen in this case).

Hopefully that helps. Obviously, there are outliers where it's harder to tell, but these are the first things I'll look for when I'm checking out a report. Block length escalates accordingly given the frequency, severity, and history of the account's vandal behaviours.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out! And congratulations on the recent RFA win, also. :) Best, m.o.p 02:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming vacation

I will be going on a lengthy vacation soon, walking the Camino de Santiago. Subsequently, I will not have access to the internet and I will not be able to address any open issues on my current A-class article candidates. If you need to close the review without promoting them, don't hesitate to do so. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that'll be necessary, MB. Have great time, I've seen a documentary on it, looks incredible. Tschüß, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your work on 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), and 27th Infantry Division Savska, all of which passed an A-Class Review between January and February 2016. Thanks for your ongoing efforts! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, well done. Kierzek (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

MilHist FA/GA discussion

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

User:Jepet

Thanks for blocking that user. However, looking through their contributions, they have a long-term history of vandalism that starts almost two years ago. I think that their infrequent editing is how they've managed to avoid being blocked for so long, but it may be a good idea to indefinitely block them as someone who clearly falls under WP:NOTHERE. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll have another look. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

202.189.75.226

Hi Peacemaker,

I just noticed that you blocked 202.189.75.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours when the previous block was for 2 years. Just wanting to run this by you whether this was on purpose or not. Cheers! FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 02:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)