This is an archive of past discussions with User:J.delanoy. 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.
While you were busy declining, I was busy semi-protecting for a week. If you have strong feelings that Ludacris should be unprotected, feel free. I won't take offense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Why you edited my ammendments without giving a valid reason? Just saying it was ammended because it was previously undone by another mod is not really a valid reason for you to undo it. Do you have as many valid reasons as I have IPa's ?
I wasn't saying that any of my personal information was in a log entry. I just asked this out of curiosity. -- IRP☎22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Prices and Purity of Cocaine/Heroin
Contrary to what the DEA might say, the price and purity of street drugs has taken a "positive" turn for those who use drugs. This is to say that the purity of street drugs has increased, while price decreased. The following comes from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Please revert my edit, as it is valid, and more factually correct than that crap that the DEA has stated.
"The indicators of a successful supply-reduction effort are rising drug prices and decreasing drug purity levels.5 Using data supplied by the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy), it is clear that the price of heroin has instead dropped significantly over time, while its production has risen greatly. The price of cocaine has similarly dropped from $275.12 per gram in 1981 to $94.52 in 1996.
Despite massive investments in border patrols, overseas crop eradication efforts, Department of Defense involvement and arrests of drug smugglers and drug dealers, the drug war has not reduced the supply of drugs nor made them more costly to obtain.
The market prices for illegal drugs follow the same laws of supply and demand that apply to all commodities. The drug war creates an artificially high commodity price, and these huge profit margins have encouraged more drug producers to enter the market. Greater production has created economies of scale. Lower production costs allow drug cartels to earn the same high profit margins with lower retail prices. The cartels accommodate for interdiction efforts by over-producing their commodity to account for the losses. Since a kilogram of raw opium has been reported to sell for $90 in Pakistan, but is worth $290,000 in the United States, law enforcement seizures at our borders have very little impact on cartel operations or profitability.6 "
No, I am not paid to edit. At least, I've never gotten any checks. I wonder if that idiot down at the post office is stealing them.... J.delanoygabsadds20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people don't know about paid editing; you need to click the button to activate paid editing on your account. Once you've done that you're paid 1c per edit. It soon adds up. – iridescent20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
the pay's alright, but I love the company car. Who'd have thought the Wikimedia foundation could afford Aston martins--Jac16888Talk21:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm? Admins talking about stupid postal workers! Sounds silly, but, amazing hilarious at the same time! Thx Al and J 4 editing my obvious screw-ups I'm still learning C++, Linux and other programming codes like html and whatnot so sorry if im making your computers go nutz on ya. Dhaz wey dhanya! :){[_-=-Tresapedario-=-_]} (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I hereby award J.delanoy the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for continuously reverting vandalism JUST as I was about to do it myself :) Good job! Neutralle21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi why did you revert the plot back to the way it was. The plot posted before told the complete story and had many errors. The full plot should bot be revealed until May 12th 2009 so it does not spoil the story for people who have not seen the movie yet.
Hi ok thanks. But can I rewrite the full plot? The one there now is choppy and has many errors in spelling and in the actual plot itself.173.68.184.9 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A Request to Lock Tom Delonge
Hey, I noticed some people trying to be funny on Tom Delonge's page... I would like it locked... I tried locking it myself... I can't get the lock to work though... Do you think you could lock it please? March 3rd 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MySummerJob (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
heh, I somehow didn't see this section. Anyways, with regard to the article, there is quite a bit of vandalism, but it's pretty spread out over a couple of weeks, so I don't think it needs to be protected now. I will keep an eye on it, and if it gets worse, I will take action. If it gets worse and I'm not doing anything, you can make a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you would like to have more administrators look at your request than just me. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand.... However, I would feel much better if random IP couldn't make changes to the page, and only people with accounts, like us are allowed to make changes to the site. --MySummerJob (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Miodio. OK, I'll try to make this simple. The band's name is "Miodio", as shown by the two websites I entered into the box afterwards. I have never seen the name "Mi Odio". As the page "Miodio" was a redirect page, I simply moved everything across - for obvious reasons. Yeah, OK, the talk page thing is slightly weird, but its not as if anyone will nitpick. How else should I edit the page? I tried moving it but the page "Miodio" existed - the redirect. What is there to do? Its plainly obvious the band name is Miodio... Dave (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the band. All I saw was that you blanked a page with no edit summary, and I thought you were a vandal attacking the page. If not, please accept my apologies. In any case, you shouldn't do cut/paste moves. See Help:Moving pages for info on how to change a page's title. J.delanoygabsadds01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A vandal... nice. Don't worry - I've stopped a few vandals before on other wikis. I can assure you I'm not a vandal... really! :D If that case, apparently I need to be an admin to move the page "over" a new one - the "Mi Odio" article onto the "Miodio" page (which is currently a redirect). Could you do that instead? And change the page "Mi Odio" as a redirect to "Miodio"? That would be very helpful! Thanks, Dave (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just going to try to find an admin and ask if this was the type of thing that a 4im warning was used for. I had assumed that things that were a violation of NPA would fit. (perhaps outing issues too?). I see the previous warning stopped just short of the 4im, I figure while I'm typing this, you're doing your behind the scenes super-duper admin magic thing, so ... long-short ... 4im for that kind of post? — Ched ~ (yes?)02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I keep pestering you with these new questions I'm sure you've answered a hundred times, but other than Cluebot - you're the most active vandal fighter I've seen yet. Appreciate your patience ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You're not pestering me! Actually, the main reason I'm here is because I can help people. That's pretty much the only thing I really like doing here. I mean, vandal-fighting is cool, but it's boring for the most part. Also, thaks for the compliment :-) J.delanoygabsadds02:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, essentially, I ended up moving the page back to its original location. IIRC, unless there is a compelling reason to have a title point at a specific article (for example, Obama redirects to Barack Obama, and the latter includes a link to Obama (disambiguation)), the disambig page usually goes at the actual name. If you disagree with me, feel free to move it back. Also, I don't think you are supposed to use templates in your signature, so you may want to change it before someone attacks *looks around* J.delanoygabsadds03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
this lead me to see [1] ... should I just WP:DENY or post NPA warning (I could personally care less .. but if it nips a problem in the bud, I'm for whatever is best for the wiki)— Ched ~ (yes?)04:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I usually revert stuff like that, but I rarely issue warnings for vandalism on someone's own talk page. But that is just my own personal preference, and I would say that warning someone for vandalizing their talk page would be valid. I just don't personally like doing so. J.delanoygabsadds04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please delete the page with the same title per request of school administraation, as it is a violation of copyright. As students are getting in trouble until site goes down. Thank you. Knobbie10 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Moved from your user page --Closedmouth (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello I was not vandalising anything as you suggested, I was correcting a glaring spelling error! You've changed it back for no reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.140.20 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been learning a lot from you behind the scenes on your Wiki expertise. Thanks!
BoomerAB (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You just reverted this edit. It was just someone (successfully) clarifying their own comment on my talk page. Try to be a little more cautious with reverting edits. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just turned on my computer and opened wikipedia. On the main page there was the banner saying I had new messages. I though this was a little weird as I was not logged in at the time. Regardless, I read the messages and find that this IP address has several warnings for childish vandalism. I am on the University of York UK network and have heard that there are several IP addresses for each accomadation block. Just to clarify, if this IP address is banned from editing/account creation (as it seems it may be), will I still be able to log in and edit if I acquire this address again in the future?
Sorry if the English is bad, I am a Russian studying chemistry in the UK
I shall sign this from the IP address.
144.32.155.203 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Your English is fine. As far as the IP address goes, yes, you will still be able to log in and edit. It is rare for an IP block to be implemented so that not even logged-in users can edit through it. In the unlikely event that such a block is implemented, instructions on how to get the block removed will be shown when you try to edit a page. J.delanoygabsadds20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Thought you might enjoy this
LOL, I guess I am a somebody now! It is very ... interesting that this editor would leave a block notice for Marek69 when just 15 minutes prior the newly registered user TennisPro2 (talk·contribs) left me this message complaining about the exact same editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that in October 2008, you blocked an IP address which has been reblocked in January (128.220.159.20). This user had been deleting information on Template:Iran Ethnic Groups Labelled Map and Ethnic minorities in Iran and obviously had some strong opinion about the subject. In the edit summary for the latter article, the user consistently seemed to talk about "propaganda" and how the article is "baiased". Qartal74 has recently deleted a this same template from the article with the same type of edit summary, which leads me to sort of believe that it could be the same user. I'm not familiar with the subject, though I assume that since this other user's actions were identical and reverted I should do the same. However, I am curious as to how this should be handled--it appears to be the same user, and their block has expired but they've returned to continue their exact same actions. I'm warning him/her, but I wanted some insight about what else can be done. Thanks! DreamHaze (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot had malfunctioned, and the owner asked me to revert all of the edits, since it would be easier to undo all of them and then redo them than it would be to try to figure out which ones were accurate. J.delanoygabsadds13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually tried to do it, but gave up after a few reverts. For one, it was way too hard to go through each one to determine which of them were legitimate and which ones weren't. The early ones actually made sense, until the x's and excess statics took over. Then you had other users edited the page after Soxbot, which meant you had to go and see if that was a good edit and then either use twinkle rollback or manually edit the page to remove what soxbot did. I satisfied my mass reversion quota by reverting an IP who was screwing up NFL infoboxes. Enigmamsg04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
How do we get semi-protection for their constantly vandalized articles? (I do not have time to go thru the process. Do you? Would you?) Frania W. (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you, J.delanoy gabsadds, the Working Man's Barnstar for the tireless and exceptional work you do in the fighting of vandalism on Wikipedia. Also for always managing to catch those who vandalise my user and talk pages. -- Marek.69 talk21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi J.delanoy, I just wanted to say thank you for catching the vandals who were up to no good on my talk page yesterday :-)) Marek.69 talk21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
It appears that this vandal—the one who is fond of adding the name "Montalbano" to Wikipedia articles—has used some other anonymous IP addresses as well. They are 172.129.121.143 and 172.130.33.65. These other IPs are not blocked. The vandalism from them isn't all that fresh, but I think I'd let you know about it anyway. Not all of the vandalism had been repaired, so I'm checking for errant Montalbanos now.
User:J.delanoy/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as J.delanoy/Archive 15's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear J.delanoy/Archive 15!
Evidence(references) have been posted to talk pages of Andrew Mango[2] and Halil İnalcık[3] indicating that the city was called Constantinople until 1930. Apparently these facts are not as qualified as Buyukresim's personal opinion[4][5][6]<here he violates 3RR. He has refused to engage in using the talk page. Is there anything you can do?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. Just for the record: I did not refuse to engage in using the talk page. I said "Please see the discussion of Andrew Mango entry. The same subject was discussed there." --Buyukresim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.[7]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This is Xavi and I'm a fan of Shakira. I've been watching Shakira's wikipedia page and there's a picture that a lot of fans are complaining about. The file is named File:Shakira at Dodge Arena.jpg. I uploaded the official picture that Shakira's management sent me (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shakira_MadisonSquareGarden.jpg). Is it possible to make the change?
Thank you for undoing my hard work and efforts make the article sound better grammatically and more relevant to the topic. Apparently you consider these things "unconstructive". Do you know what is unconstructive? Carelessly reverting the hard work of others without even making a comment or asking for clarification.
Compare my version with yours.
first change: mentioning that Hess is considered a martyr by the party. Why you don't think this is important, why it should not be mentioned so as to say why the NPD has a picture of Hess there, is beyond me.
6000 is not an exact figure, it is an estimate. The JLO says around 7. The NPD says 7 or 8. The media has said at least 6.
Nobody met the demonstrators - again, meet suggests confrontation. There was another rally in the middle of the city held by antifa. There were two demos held the previous days, too. One was anti the other was nationalist. So what? None of this is important.
the section "alleged intimidation attempts is not even about intimidation.
a concert cannot declare itself an "anti-fascist" concert, the organizer calls it that.
Your removal of my edit to the page on Coal prompts me to write:
1. The edit was a recommendation for consistency. The table at the top of the page is not consistent with the content further down where I made the recommendation.
2. The edit was a recommendation for clarity, with examples. Regardless of how much the calculation of carbon dioxide production seems to match some reference, the process shown was incorrect. The math was fine, the assumptions were "jiggered" to get a result that matched some reference. That's not good science and it's misleading. I showed correct values for CO2 vs C that need no external reference, unless from a basic chemistry text. Any basic chemistry text.
3. The edit was a recommendation for someone else to do some work. If this is wrong, I'm guilty, but the recommendation should remain for a while, and not be dismissed with a reference to something else that does not address the methodology being criticized.
4. To restate the simplest issue, if the table near the top of the article on Coal does not show a single example of coal with carbon <60%, the equation using 50% is simply inapplicable and either the table or the equation needs work. Since most coals in the table are >60%C, that equation is misleading and your reversion continues that error.
Hello, On Mar 6, you reverted an article on Blunk. I have since reverted it to a much earlier version because it looked like it had been slowly vandalized by 76.251.108.243 on Mar 5. Please review this change and make sure you agree with my reversion.
J appleseed2 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, whatever if you feel whatever you see on the Greatist Hits page is appropiate and valid that's not problem I still believe you should take another look and if you do you will notice the page is a mess! I was simply trying to clean it up because those paragraphs truly did not belong there... and I would think you being a Wikipedia Editor you would undertstand why I deleted the the paragraph.
Yours is a name I've seen around quite a bit, usually at the same times of the day/night as me. I'm interested in becoming an admin at some point (I've got an active RfA, but it looks as though it's going to fail). What I'm curious about is whether or not you'd be interested in doing some admin coaching. Any thoughts?
I don't think I would be a very good admin coach. For one thing, I passed RFA on credentials that should not have allowed me to pass. For another, I think I tend to be "too nice" when it comes to RFA. Sorry :/ J.delanoygabsadds23:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, give your server a clip behind the ear and send it to bed without supper. Damn uppity hardware... Or is it software? HalfShadow23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You're The Man Now Dog
I don't know how you do it, but you seem to be all over this project removing nonsense. Perhaps one day you shall train me in your ways, and I will one day be able to revert so much vandalism without going insane. Anyway, I would award you a barnstar, but I don't do that. But I'll tell you what I will do. I will award you this incredibly lovely[citation needed] bold, italicized, and underlined asterisk:
Hey J.delanoy,
I was using HG to remove the link, not add it. Just wanted to make sure there was no confusion about it.
Thanks AeonicOmega (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wind down
You know telling me I suck in a rollover was pretty low even for a Wikipedia administrator last minute cheap shot. Every time I ask myself, how low can Wikipedia administrators go, somebody else comes along to show me my eyes are still way too high on the horizon.
Now that people had finally got to discussing substantive issues, you had to come along for a wiki-admin-cheap-shot. You suck more than I ever could. The most important thing editors could ever do to improve the atmosphere on Wikipedia is discuss issues. This includes administrators. --KP Botany (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Was just wondering why it was reverted, I simply provided the translation of the red-underlined text, which provided a rather startling insight on "WHY" they were well-fed that day and what the red ribbons were in the drawing. Let me know what I did wrong. - Halyna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.140.31 (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a few more translations for that article since, if you or someone else would like to revise them for proper formatting. Thanks. RoseOfKali (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are talking about the edit in the article "1" then you should read the disambiguation at the top and realize that the article was about the YEAR 1, 2008 years ago, not the number, and the link to the NUMBER 1 article was right there in the same sentence. Also, your edit was unconstructive and looked more like a comment on a talkpage than an encyclopedia entry. What is useless to you may be useful to someone else. RoseOfKali (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I accept your apology. You know, I suspect you've now looked at what the rollover looked like by your tone on my talk page--it was absolutely stunning. I believe you that it was a link; but I won't go check it.
Please consider, though, as many people as were going at me at that point, no additional offense was needed, particularly as it appears from Headbomb's user page that this sort of offensive is something he's used before, and is proud of--at least enough to include it on his user page. As an administrator butting in you have a number of options, and I hope that your number one choice in the future is to ruthlessly stick to the substantive issues, rather than discussing personalities or applying your own standards to what another editor should be offended or insulted by. Once you start discussing someone personally you forfeit your right to decide how they will respond to your comments about them. If I had not been the topic of conversation no debate about whether or not I should be insulted could have arisen--it's that simple: don't talk about the person and there is no question of standards of insult.
Actually, if you mouse over the link it says "U suck," and nothing else whatsoever. So, what came across was the message, "This" is a personal attack, and I roll over "this," and you're telling me, "U suck." I didn't bother to go deeper into what I thought was a Wikipedia essay along the lines of "Don't be a dick," a dickish way to tell someone you think they're a being what you're acting like (not you, as in you J, but whoever is passing on the essay, the generic you). We're cool as far as I am concerned. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ham
Why is my edit unconstructive? I can't see pictures so small as they are. I have really bad vision and I cant afford glasses. Please let me make the picture as big as my screen so I can see it and get more knowledge from it. Don't be prejudiced towards handicapped people. You non-handicaps don't understand what it is like to be us. 74.214.50.116 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Making the picture 30000px is disruptive. Every browser in existance, and most operating systems, allow you to magnify pages. Use that. J.delanoygabsadds21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That annoying guy one last time before he falls asleep after 48 straight hours of spamming your talk page with ridiculously long section names
I know you are probably busy reverting hundreds of cases of vandalism, tagging dozens of articles for speedy deletion, spreading your knowledge of foreign soft drinks at the reference desk, rescuing a neglected article from almost certain deletion and bringing it to GA status within minutes, copyediting thousands of articles for cohesion and grammar, re-categorizing scores of pages, arguing your points at Wikipedia:AnythingForDebate, wikifying the Wikipedia's newest articles, interrogating Wikipedia's Most Wanted, creating self-referencing templates, and, occasionally, even doing something that won't get reverted by Jimbo Wales, so feel free to take all day in the epic chess match. It's not like the whole world is waiting for you to move your man or anything. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
delition of mu article about the Faculty of Security Studies
Dear Wiki editors,
I am a new user and do not understand well why you delete my article about the Faculty of Security Studies. It was well supported and you can find out relevant information at official web page of the Faculty of Security Studies of the University of Belgrade www.fb.bg.ac.rs and furthemore at English version http://www.fb.bg.ac.rs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=249&Itemid=1259
Hope you will return the article since it is a case of an educational institution with high reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasioc (talk • contribs) 12:44, March 8, 2009 (UTC)
When I deleted that article, I make no judgment as to the notability of the subject. I deleted it as a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept text that is owned by other people/organizations. When you use a source to make an article, try to write it in your own words. J.delanoygabsadds16:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, this editor appears to be Darko Trifunović or someone associated with him; check out the article. There have been problems with anonymous/pseudonymous editors on that article for a long time, and I strongly suspect this new user to be another sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Rotherham and the Chuckle Brothers
I object to the removal of the reference to the Chuckle Brothers from the Rotherham United page. This reference has been on the site for many weeks and gives due credit to the club's honorary presidents. I propose that this reference is re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.170.53 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there a way to format those rectangular prismsrectangles (Edit 03/10/09 around 17:42) that have text and images in them such that the images/text isn't loaded and/or/ displayed until someone presses some sort of button (ideally, something like "Show")? If so, what characters do I need to insert onto the page for that to happen? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's just a table with some formatting. If you look at the source code for that page and copy/tweak it, you should be able to do what you want to. J.delanoygabsadds14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM
good job helping wikipedia sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.121.150 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Kindly read the edit I made. i was reverting well-sourced material, edied to overcome objection by adding "alleged" The man is a wanted suspect in a major crime, for heavens sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In general, if the vandalism is simple, childish stuff, I just let them go, because if I block one, the other will be autoblocked anyways. J.delanoygabsadds21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I myself am heterosexual. Completely. I know what I like. I am not a "gay basher." My own personal belief is that preference is a thing of nature, not 100% conscious choice. My own inhibitions keep me from delving too deeply into the subject, but given that the event seems to be true and is apparently a stepping stone toward social barriers being broken, I'm not 100% convinced that the event does not belong. I'm not 100% convinced that it does. I do find that there are few (if any at all) references within the DOY pages that cover this slow change of social opinion on the matter and therefore, may be notable.
P.S. - My mention of "gay-basher" is no insinuation that I feel your removing the entry is part of that mentallity but to demonstrate my neutral opinion of the matter. Kentholke (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
im trying to say that this is a really nice website
you are so michutsu(:
byungshin michinsekki;D LOL
i hope you had a really nice day(:
anyways thanks for replying jotsekki^^
Hi J. Delanoy, this is user Pudge2, I'd really appreciate it if you unblocked me. I honestly did not vandalize anything, I swear to God. Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.38.119 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I would say that it seems unlikely to lead to anything further, but the person to ask about this is probably the person who accused you of warring. J.delanoygabsadds20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
what i put on carlos tevez's page is actually true, his mother was 14 when she had him and she WAS a prostitute. he came from a poor region of argentina and such was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.109.208 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the conflict at Jimbo's talk page. I did not realize the IP was a disturbance earlier before. As to this, it is considered vandalism, and I hope you accept my apology. ZooFari03:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm like a scarecrow right now. Don't have much of a brain, I'm jealous, and tired. I even saw a video on this that was removed! You'll probably find out what's really happening later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.69.62 (talk) at 21:39, March 8, 2009
So whatcha going to do over spring break? Constantly and boringly press a key on the keyboard? Go on a vacation? Pressing a key almost every hour would be just BORING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.69.62 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
An hour ago, I checked your edits that you made back in January, and out of the days in Jan that you used HG: 29/31. Unbelievable, just unbelievable. You really are a robot. This should calm down later this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.69.62 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Still a lot of espn links that were messed up by Soxbot
this, for example. That's why it was such a problem. Soxbot often wasn't the last editor when you reverted. In this case, the bot messed up a ton of references. I guess it would be too time-consuming to manually look now, but perhaps a search can be done for links with "expn" in them and those can be fixed, because I don't think any legitimate link would have expn in it. Enigmamsg02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Doing with AWB will probably be impossible. There are too many variations to what it did, and I don't know how to account for all of them. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. Can one revert several edits at once using "popup" tool? If so, how is it possible? For example, reverting 3 edits, to a specific edit that was done 3 days ago (in cases that unknown IP users edit pages with mistakes and you want to revert them all at once, rather than one by one). Is there a tool for that? and also, I would appreciate if you tell me what are the uses of popups in editing as a whole.Thanks alot, Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
To revert more to a particular revision, there are two ways that I know of. If you are in the page's history tab, you can hover the link to the last good revision, and under actions, click revert. You can also hover the "cur" or "last" links in the history to revert to that revision. If you bring up a page's history using popups, you can do the same thing by hovering the links that it brings up in there.
Twinkle, among other things, provides a "restore this version" link on the left hand side when you view a diff (see screen grab). I find using installing Twinkle and popups simultaneously to be very useful, as popups are easier to revert with if you are looking at a page's history, and Twinkle is easier to use if you are looking at a diff. Keep in mind, though, that running a lot of javascript can significantly slow your browser down (if you have an older computer), and also Twinkle does not work in Internet Explorer.
As far as the uses of popups, the only thing I can think of off hand that you may not have known is that you can hover links in popups to open further popups. For example, when someone reports a vandal to WP:AIV, most of the time, it includes a link to the vandal's contribs in the edit summary. When I see the summary in my watchlist, I hover the link, which brings up their contribs. I then hover the diffs to make sure the edits are vandalism, then I open the "user" menu and hover the link to the vandal's talk page, and look at the page history to see if they were recently given warnings. Essentially, without ever leaving my watchlist, I can check everything I need to decide whether or not to block someone. So basically, IMO, the real power of popups is the ability to "chain them together" to get more information without having to leave the page you are on. J.delanoygabsadds16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to tell you that after reviewing the case with NishKid, I decided to amend the CheckUser results and I (temporarily?) unblocked Abbatai (talk·contribs) since the account is no longer confirmed to be Azturkk (talk·contribs). There is a geographical relationship, but the technical evidence and editing times suggest they may be 2 different people. I hope you don't mind :). -- lucasbfrtalk00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
i just wanted to make blood burgers in caps. because it is very bad that she went on hells kitchen and didn't know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.116.63 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Drop the act....you have been reported to AIV for vandalism on several pages RandomGuy32. You are the attacker here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 04:29
I'm going to respectfully ask to do a bit of checking of my edit history (and maybe check out all of the legit warnings that Planecrash has reverting out of his own talk page over time) before coming to a conclusion like that. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
...and I going to respectfully ask you to leave him alone. You should be blocked right now and I thought you were. If you having an issue, walk away, just walk away. Also, when someone removes a warning from there talk page that doesn't give you the right to replace it again. The deletion means they have seen and acknowledged it. Don't put it back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 13, 2009 @ 04:45
You gave a "last warning" to Tiramisoo for this edit to New World Order (conspiracy theory). The edit was adding links to David Icke and Alex Jones. Why do you think this was vandalism? Superficially it looks to me like a perfectly good faith attempt to add links to articles relevant to the topic of the article. The attempt was not very good, for a couple of reasons, and the link to Alex Jones is to a disambiguation page, while it is presumably intended to be to Alex Jones (radio host). However, careless editing is not the same as vandalism. You may well have a very good reason for regarding this as vandalism: if so I should be interested in knowing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I've created a template for cleaning copyright infringement, Template:Cclean. It requires substitution. I just fixed one that was transcluded. Can you tell me if you think that the directions are clear enough or if there's something different I should do with it? I don't know if it was transcluded because the user is not familiar with substituting templates or if there's no sane reason that one should be substituted. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey :-)
I added some code to the template that will produce an error message if the template is not subst-ed. See the history of User:J.delanoy/3 if you want to see what it does. Do you think that will work? J.delanoygabsadds15:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
there is a comment about Rebecca Harper "Rebcca dies becuase she is evil cow bitch" that I tried to remove but couldn't. I just read Wiki and don't know it well enough to do much more than this. helina_yyahoo.com
Thanks, looks like there's nothing too interesting anyway. I'd hoped by the divided AfD discussion that there was a reasonable start but it looks easier to just begin again. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Question
I'm very flattered, but I think I can probably help the encyclopaedia more through writing and maintaining content. I'm pretty sure I could do the job - it seems to mostly call for common sense and calmness, but others are just as well qualified and would probably have more time. I'm therefore hesitant to take on responsibilities that I couldn't give my full attention to. (In a word, "no") Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've found a vandal for admins to know about
Hi there.
I'm NOT an admin or anything but I couldn't help but notice the amount of vandalism that a particular account appears to be causing. I noticed you left a message on the talk page User talk:Mcevapouration and just thought I'd inform an administrator that the account has been making several unwanted edits. I'm new to Wikipedia but I am willing to notify administrators if I believe something needs attention. Do you think its worth watching this account? --Sky Attacker (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind my eavesdropping - that user has been blocked indefinitely, something you can check by clicking on 'block log' on his user contributions page. Hadrian89 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your talk page, even though you unprotected it, as the vandalism is continuing. Only semi-protection is required as the socks are not autoconfirmed. I recommend you leave the protection in place for a day or so as Star Mississippi suggested, although before the protection was full (I've put a one week limit on the semi-protection though, so you may want to change that). Hope it doesn't cause inconvenience, Nev1 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And I just unprotected it without seeing this. Hmm. I guess I'll protect it for now. It's not often I have multiple admins doing this. J.delanoygabsadds02:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
We've all got your back :) I was too slow on Tan's this morning, not sure who either of you pissed off today. Eek. StarM02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you :-) I don't know about Tan, but they guy attacking me is either Grawp in a different persona, or more likely some n00b who wants to become as notorious as Grawp. J.delanoygabsadds02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
People need a hobby. I really don't get the OMG!Vandalism is teh kewl!!!!!! school of thought. Remember once trying to log on from uni -- IP blocks all over the place because of twits. StarM03:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed-minded user
Hello, J.delanoy. I attempted to communicate with the user who has erroneously accused me of edit warring (see above↑↑). It seems that I cannot communicate with the user. The user is treating me like a vandal, which may give some users the impression that I'm editing in bad faith, which is not true at all. Every edit that I have ever made to Wikipedia was done in good faith. See this link. I don't know if it is a misunderstanding or an intentional bad faith edit on on Roux's part. -- IRP☎03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have removed the post from Roux's talk page so nobody would receive the false impression that I am a vandal. -- IRP☎03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I was asking if I really did something terribly wrong. The user has accused me of edit warring (on Ultraviolet Sound) and may make the false impression that I am a vandal or something similar. There is clear evidence that I have not made one bad faith edit to Wikipedia, as you can see from my block log that I have never been blocked. If you look at the block log for Roux, you can see that user has been blocked in the past for doing exactly what he or she accused me of doing. That makes me think that there is no doubt that the user has made another bad faith edit. I don't know if I should report for abuse. -- IRP☎20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will decide you are a vandal on the basis of someone accusing you of edit-warring. As you said, you were not blocked, and if you tried to contact Roux and got no response, there is not much else you can do. My advice is just ignore the whole thing. J.delanoygabsadds20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The edit warring was only part of the problem. I was concerned that one of Roux's comments would make me seem like a vandal. The user posted "further messages you post here will be removed on sight" (diff). The only time that I have ever seen talk page messages or edits removed on sight is if it is made by a sockpuppet of User:Grawp, and I feel that my edits should not be treated in such a manner, as they are done entirely in good faith. The user then restored the post (possibly maliciously) (click for diff) after I removed it because first of all, I was the one who posted it, second of all, I felt that any other editor who sees that would think I am a vandal. -- IRP☎20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
IRP, let it go. Roux was certainly being snarky here, but (regardless of what you say) you were edit-warring here; see the history of the article:
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
* (diff) 01:11, 11 March 2009 . . Timtrent (talk | contribs | block) (1,161 bytes) (External links: rm non notable EL for a members only forum.)
* (diff) 00:43, 11 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (1,230 bytes) (Restored AfD tag)
* (diff) 00:38, 11 March 2009 . . Roux (talk | contribs | block) (987 bytes) (Reverted to revision 276378136 by Roux; Nope, recreation of previously deleted material = speedy. Album to be deleted after band article is gone.. (TW))
* (diff) 00:35, 11 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (1,215 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraviolet Sound (2nd nomination). (TW))
* (diff) 00:33, 11 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (973 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Roux; Album is notable but the band is not? Please re-discuss the deletion.. (TW))
* (diff) 23:15, 10 March 2009 . . Roux (talk | contribs | block) (987 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G4). (TW))
* (diff) 23:09, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (973 bytes)
* (diff) 23:07, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (902 bytes)
* (diff) 23:07, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (900 bytes)
* (diff) 23:06, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (899 bytes)
* (diff) 23:05, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (898 bytes)
* (diff) 23:02, 10 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (694 bytes) (Removed MySpace link)
* (diff) 23:02, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (806 bytes)
* (diff) 23:02, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (805 bytes)
* (diff) 23:01, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (804 bytes)
* (diff) 23:00, 10 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (854 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by XLinkBot; Other links were OK. (TW))
* (diff) 22:58, 10 March 2009 . . XLinkBot (talk | contribs | block) (574 bytes) (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 82.46.147.169 to revision 276368804 (http://www.myspace.com/ultravioletsound))
* (diff) 22:57, 10 March 2009 . . 82.46.147.169 (talk | block) (854 bytes)
* (diff) 22:50, 10 March 2009 . . 82.46.147.169 (talk | block) (618 bytes)
* (diff) 22:49, 10 March 2009 . . 82.46.147.169 (talk | block) (618 bytes)
* (diff) 22:33, 10 March 2009 . . IRP (talk | contribs | block) (574 bytes) (Tag and fix)
* (diff) 22:28, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (583 bytes)
* (diff) 22:27, 10 March 2009 . . GimmeMyElectro (talk | contribs | block) (519 bytes) (←Created page with 'Ultraviolet Sound are an American electro-pop band from Los Angeles, California. The band's lead singer, Sarah Hudson, is formerly known for her work as a sol…')
* (diff) 01:15, 31 December 2008 . . Twsx (talk | contribs | block) (2,329 bytes) (fixing genre capitalization mistakes per WP:MUSTARD -> MOS:CAPS + cleanup. Problems? Click here!)
* (diff) 08:04, 27 December 2008 . . Roux (talk | contribs | block) (2,330 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraviolet Sound. (TW))
* (diff) 06:19, 13 December 2008 . . Woohookitty (talk | contribs | block) (1,996 bytes) (disam)
* (diff) 02:37, 11 December 2008 . . Bearcat (talk | contribs | block) (1,981 bytes) (Removed category "Music"; Quick-adding category "American electronic music groups" (using HotCat))
* (diff) 09:06, 5 December 2008 . . OrphanBot (talk | contribs | block) (1,954 bytes) (Removing image with no copyright information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time.)
* (diff) 09:28, 4 December 2008 . . Unara (talk | contribs | block) (1,976 bytes) (fix)
* (diff) 20:37, 2 December 2008 . . 123woo123 (talk | contribs | block) (1,976 bytes)
* (diff) 21:45, 30 November 2008 . . 123woo123 (talk | contribs | block) (1,955 bytes)
* (diff) 21:35, 30 November 2008 . . 123woo123 (talk | contribs | block) (1,903 bytes) (Music videos)
* (diff) 21:27, 30 November 2008 . . Discospinster (talk | contribs | block) (1,824 bytes) (Added {{notability}} tag to article. using Friendly)
* (diff) 20:39, 30 November 2008 . . Stotheb2010 (talk | contribs | block) (1,784 bytes) (MORE official)
* (diff) 20:28, 30 November 2008 . . Stotheb2010 (talk | contribs | block) (1,567 bytes) (references)
* (diff) 20:23, 30 November 2008 . . Stotheb2010 (talk | contribs | block) (1,537 bytes) (making it sort of official)
* (diff) 16:48, 30 November 2008 . . 123woo123 (talk | contribs | block) (463 bytes)
* (diff) 16:33, 30 November 2008 . . 123woo123 (talk | contribs | block) (459 bytes) (←Created page with 'Ultraviolet Sound are an American electro band, consisting of three members: Sarah Hudson, Sami D and B-RAD. They formed in late 2006. Their first EP, entitled ...')
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.
And users remove messages from their talkpages immediately all the time; both myself and J.delanoy, otherwise we'd have talkpages that look like chatroom logs. – iridescent21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe what I was doing constituted edit warring because I didn't revert repeatedly. Please look carefully and you will see that I only reverted once. I restored the {{AfD}} tag, however, I still left Roux's {{db}} tag in place. Besides, I believe that it does not constitute Wikipedia: Edit war unless you revert legitimate edits more than thrice (please correct me if I'm wrong). -- IRP☎21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC), modified 18:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. IRP asked my opinion on the matter. I've responded on my talk page, but I just wanted to wander by and say that I think there may have been a misunderstanding. As IRP notes, he didn't revert, but only restored the AfD tag that Roux removed, which was appropriate, since there was an open AfD. Even if the article is G4'ed, it's handy to the deleting admin to know that there's an open AfD, and it gives other contributors an opportunity to respond. Evidently, it's important to him that others realize that he didn't do anything wrong, and I believe that he was acting in good faith there and working within process. While I'm here, though, I do have to agree with User:Iridescent and User:J.delanoy that there's not much to be done about it. And to point out to IRP that, actually, edit warring doesn't require three reverts. As WP:EW notes, the 3RR rules is just a ballpark indicator; "Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." While I don't believe IRP did edit war in this instance, I think it's important to clear that one up, since such a misunderstanding could lead to trouble. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering how much I pestered you with questions about CSD when I was a n00b in that area, I don't think you can possibly ever bug me as much as I bugged you, so don't worry about that ;-)
Okay, don't ask me why on earth it would do this, but the subcategories are sorted the exact same way as the pages in the category. So, the first page in Category:Possible copyright violations ranges from A through C. Thus, the first page includes all the subcategories whose titles start with A, B, or C. This continues on through the category, so if you click on "next 200" a few times or on one of the letters on the index, you will find the other subcategories. For example, here there are 5 more subcategories. I hope that makes sense. It is pretty simple in reality (although it seems illogical to me), but it is difficult to describe without actually showing you. J.delanoygabsadds19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me know if you ever think you've done enough. :D I see what you mean--how bizarre. And unhelpful. Well, once we get all of those mollusc articles cleared out, it'll be fully functional again. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: vandalism warning
My edit was not vandalism. I was removing a redundant sentence. The criterion gave two examples in two different places, so I removed one of them.
It may appear that every edit I make is vandalism. Actually I am editing from a shared school IP where thousands of students have access. I know my way around Wikipedia but am currently not using an account.
Hello. I hope that you can help me. Can I place a CSD template on a user page if it appears to be an attack page or to infringe WP:BLP? The page that I am concerned with is User:Skatergirl32797? It claims to be written by the person it prima facie disparages, but I don't really imagine that what it says is not total nonsense, and I can imagine that it could be written by an 'impersonator'. James500 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I would say ask the person on their talk page to take it down, or just blank it. User pages are not indexed by search engines, IIRC, so it shouldn't be a problem from that standpoint. J.delanoygabsadds17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, this one is a problem per BLP. G:10 does apply to user spaces, and userpages are indexed by google. Even if this individual were for some reason making up stories about herself (maybe she really dislikes her brother?), it contains identifying information about an individual who would be 11 years old. I've deleted it under BLP and left a note for the contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that AIV has a huge backlog. Unless someone else is already on it, would you mind to have a look? De728631 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Special Barnstar
Your name flashes across my screen a lot and I wanted to acknowledge the good work you do in many different areas of WP. Johnfos (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. Take a look at this. These seem to be numerous user pages belonging to a single individual (self-identified as a teenage girl in Alaska) who has made numerous accounts for no apparent reason. Thanks. --Boston (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the page Farhan I'm on to you! Heather Cave’s page has been redirected to it. I don’t know how to fix it. The page is being vandalized by a couple of users and will need cleaning up as well. Jackfork (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Mario article
Just wanted to let you know that I've accidentally reverted your edit on the Mario article as I thought you've added "non-" before "fictional character" when you've actually done the opposite. There have been so much vandalism on this article for the past few days that I've hit "rollback vandal" a bit too quickly. Sorry about that! Laurent (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi can ypu please check the edit made from User_talk:131.111.229.18 this user was issued a warning from you as well as my self and i do believe this could be a false positive i am using huggle please let me know thanks.
Could you please explain to me how you seem to crop up on Wikispecies within 60seconds of certain vandalism by anon. IP and undo their vandalism??? It looks to me like the vandals could be your sockpuppets...
stho002 (over on Wikispecies)
The reason why I posted a notice here was because I have made two reports to AIV more than an hour ago and apparently no administrator noticed them. -- IRP☎21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Possible Sock?
Hi,
Just been looking through the recent changes page and came across a of edits by User talk:24.44.90.82 on this userpage User:Come clean wake up, who was blocked indefinitely due to evading a block by creating a new account. I've never tagged anyone as a sockpuppet anyone before so i was just wondering if you could have a look to see if what i've done is correct? Thanks Uksam88 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My AGF meter got a crack in it when you showed up out of nowhere and proceeded to do nothing but remove CSD tags and field complaints about your actions. J.delanoygabsadds00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Gangland (video game)
Can you delete this page. It is a duplicate copy of Gangland. I do not want to redirect to that article. After deleting the article. The gangland need to be moved to Gangland (video game) after that the article "Gangland" needs to be redirected to Gangland (disambiguation). Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210discovered elements ∞ what am I? has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Enjoy!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hey, you reverted my edit to the Rushton article. I considered it to be quite constructive and included an edit summary. I plan on reverting it back, please provide a reason as to why you don't think it was a constructive addition. 99.255.5.248 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found some time to finally come back to the wubbolous world of wikipedia, and the first "vandalism" I saw was a user trying to post a comment on another's talk page. The user's comment was a little rude, but not vandal's work. I agree with the user 24.208.19.195 that it is Until it sleep's choice to delete it. No proper warnings were given, so I believe that the block should be lightened or lifted. I will personally warn the user without an automatic script, for friendliness, about the situation. Cheers! WikiZorrosign23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry For Editing. It Wasn't Intentional
I wasn't even aware that I had edited the page you notified me about (Frederick Banting). Can you tell me how I edited it? What my edit was about? Have I edited any more pages unawares?
After looking into the matter a bit more, I have to say that you're completely mistaken. I've never even attempted to access/read the page on Frederick Banting, let alone attempt to edit it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.27.75 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You are probably correct. You have a dynamic IP address, so it is likely that someone else vandalized, and then you got the warning that was intended for them. Just don't worry about it, and if you get warnings like this a lot, you can avoid them by creating an account and logging in. Cheers, and sorry for the confusion. J.delanoygabsadds14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check this new anon
Hi could you please check this new anon that has suddenly appeared 207.67.17.45. He is currently active and had just reversed a suspect vandalism edit from an anon editor that I suspect is also vandalising another article with a different IP in his same block unit. I haven't even finished warning the first user and tying the two IP's together when he reversed my edit. He also appears to be reversing other editors work? NB: It seems odd that a 'New' editor would know to place this link here Talk:Conservapedia. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048 has continued edit warring on the Mehmed Talat article[11],[12],[13]. Stating that he deserves a platform for HIS opinion! This has been to mediation, and the mediator was subsequently verbally attacked by Ibrahim4048. Do you have any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Denying to give me a platform to discuss whether the armenian genocide committed by the ottoman government is a fact or that it is disputed (thus allegedly would be in its place) is alright by you? I mean it IS seriously disputed among scholars and countries, it's not just my personal opinion. All the arguments and pieces of text I gave on the talk and mediation pages were from academic sources. Unlike the holocaust there was no racist/religious doctrine (armenians, greeks etc co-founded the young turks, young turks were secular) in the young turk government and there are no documents that prove anyone from the government ordered armenian civilians to be killed. In contrast thousands of documents and physical proof (gaschambers, furnaces) exist to prove the holocaust and neither do the germans deny it. Putting alleged in front of holocaust or in some other way expressing doubt about the factualness of the holocaust would be wrong for these reasons. In the case of the armenian genocide there is simply no proof that the ottoman government ordered armenian civilians to be killed. Even if you believe the ottomans did commit genocide, you should accept the fact that there is no conclusive proof and accept the existence and expression of other views. These users have been reverting my contribution and just don't want to discuss it. They even warned each other that discussing it with me on the mediation page would give my arguments legitimacy. This has been the tactic they used in all the other armenia-turkey related topics thus far. They simply revert contributions made by genocide deniers/doubters and even delete comments made on the talk page.
They created a sort of POV_fork by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the genocide page and banishing everything to the genocide denial page (which also is critical about the denial and doesn't mention a lot of the arguments given by genocide deniers/doubters). This is a violation of wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and should give both sides of an argument/subject in an article and shouldn't be written to represent a certain view about a subject. It would be ok to have a separate denial page of course but only to expand on the denial section (that should be) in the genocide article itself.
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
Unless you can show me that the armenian genocide is considered fact by wikipedia, I should have the right for a platform to discuss it at least. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. Do not use Wikipedia for pushing a point of view. Edit warring and POV pushing is unacceptable under any circumstances, and if you continue to do so, you will quickly find yourself banned from editing. J.delanoygabsadds 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
None of the the contributions/arguments I made are original thought. They are all from academics, published by established publishing houses and universities. I am not the one who is pushing POV here. Kansas Bear and the others are pushing POV by not allowing even the expression of doubt about the genocide and their desire to represent it as an established fact. Since you deny me the right to discuss my contributions about the armenian genocide and appear to agree with pro-recognition views, I can assume wikipedia has taken a stand in the dispute on the side of armenian genocide recognizers? At least that way we can establish wikipedia's position on the genocide and perhaps something could be done against it. Or is it just your POV and abusing your administrator rights to push your POV? How can you deny me the right to defend my contributions when they are all properly referenced by legitimate sources? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. Do not use Wikipedia for pushing a point of view. Edit warring and POV pushing is unacceptable under any circumstances, and if you continue to do so, you will quickly find yourself banned from editing.
Ok, so the above message was just a standard message? I am sorry if I misunderstood but I think you can understand why I thought that you took sides when you know that the user who reported me to you and the other uses involved in the mediation (except the mediator) refused to give me a platform to explain my academically sourced contributions. They seem to think that by refusing to discuss it with me and just use their superior numbers in reverting they can just push their view that the armenian genocide is an undisputed genocide. It is far from undisputed because firstly turkey refuses recognition and secondly there are many (western and turkish) scholars who dispute the armenian genocide recognition and the vast majority of countries don't recognize the genocide. Six countries have actively refused bills to recognize the armenian genocide among whom the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden. I think you can understand why I thought you were also refusing me to defend my contribution when you read the mediation talk page, and how the users have been sabotaging the mediation by warning each other to not discuss things with me [14] but simply use their numbers to win an edit war.
What do you think about my claim that they violate POV_fork by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide page and banishing everything to the armenian genocide denial page. It is almost the same thing as creating a fork because they either created the denial article themselves so they could push their POV on the armenian genocide article or they basically forced others to create it by not allowing denial/doubt views on the armenian genocide article.
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.
It is clear I think that the armenian genocide article doesn't represent all facts and major Points of View on the genocide and should be drastically rewritten. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048 continues to be disruptive, by adding the word "alleged" to describe the Armenian Genocide. The sentence in question has 4 references that are from reliable 3rd party sources(International Association of Genocide Scholars). Can you assist in this matter? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Huggle
Is that what HG stands for? well, Stop fuckin using that script to send messages to ips. it's soooooo annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.127.172 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2009
Oh, no. Given the circumstances back then, I would have supported the measure, so there is no ill will or feelings. I just hope that it doesn't continue (I've been in contact with RHMED for a while). What a horrible outcome to something that could have been prevented. seicer | talk | contribs17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(Replying here so that that ANI thread isn't kept alive unnecessarily) Based on my reception at ANI, it's pretty clear how a proposal to codify ISP contacts would end up, so I probably won't be bothering to follow up this on. I haven't changed my opinion, but I see that it's not a concern shared by many so I'm dropping it. I'm sorry if you felt I was singling you out, but the circumstances were an ideal illustration of why I feel there needs to be more attention given to these actions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Help re-protect the Escalator page!
Hello. I noticed that you recently granted semi-protection to the Thomas Edison page, so I hope I'm not presuming too much to ask for your help. The Escalator page was semi-protected, but either it has expired or it was removed accidentally (being optimistic here). We've had our fair share of vandalism, and a new round just popped up on March 19-20. Could you help us and please re-protect the page? Thanks!--BFDhD (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The cheapo
Something really needs to be done about him. He keeps creating accounts, to attack the editors that he had contact with, and he keeps giving death threats. Is there anything that you can do about it?
See this category for all the sockpuppets The cheapo used:
[15]ReliableForevertalk22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Revert, block, and comprehensively ignore. I have your page watchlisted, and any active admin will block on sight based on the abusive nature of the edits. Acroterion(talk)22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle help
Do you know how I can set Twinkle to where it does not watchlist every page I revert and won't watchlist the user talk pages of the users I revert? This didn't seem to work. -- IRP☎19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your talk header trick, and shamelessly copied it for my own talk page. How do you prevent SineBot from automatically signing the page every time you change something on it? I temporarily fixed it by opting out of auto-signing, but it's a little dangerous. —LedgendGamer23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
J.Delanoy, I'm not sure if you'd noticed, but the Stuwell3/Grawp sock you banned has a counterpart. Within one minute of the creation of the Stuwell3 account, an account for User:Stuwell2 was created.--LWF (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't even notice the other account right away. It was only two days ago when I had requested removing the semi-prot. of my talk page :/ ~ Troy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Turns out, there's also another account user:Stuwell, which was created at the same time as the others, same day and time and all that, but so far it's edits have not been vandalistic in nature, but I find it to be too much to be a coincidence.--LWF (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My Bad
That was not my intention there had been some vandalism a few seconds before I made that edit. I will be more carful next time. Best, otisjimmy (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked a checkuser, and he said that it is possible that it could be the same person, but not likely. However, they are most likely connected in some way to the person who was socking. J.delanoygabsadds23:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add givemeknol.com to the blacklist, but I don't know how. It is a website posting in entirety copyrighted books. My investigation suggests that it issues from Vietnam, which is likely to make it challenging for publishers to take it down. So far, it's being added by a single run of IP editors (you can see my talk for a list), but I think this one is a doozy per WP:ELNEVER. Since any admin can edit, I presume it's okay if I edit. But since I am the particular admin I am, I think it's better if I don't. ("Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial." Check.) :) Would you mind doing this on my behalf? I'd be fine with you directing any questions about it to me. If you aren't comfortable doing that, no problem, I'll make a request at the talkpage. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey :-)
I'd love to help, but my regex skills are... pretty much non-existent, and I have already messed up a couple of bots on IRC antivandalism channels. I would probably destroy it worse than you would. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
you just wrote on my talk page claiming that i vandalized a discussion, how on earth is it even possible to vandalized a talk page?!?! 207.246.181.26 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is possible, but I made a mistake. If you look at the page history of your talk page and the talk page where you posted, I almost immediately undid my revert and my warning. Sorry for the confusion. J.delanoygabsadds15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Seeing as you seem to know user:Seicer in some form or other, can I ask you to comment on his recent edits? He has been removing unreferenced material from BLP articles quoting that "questionable material must be removed". However, I strongly believe that much of the material that has been removed does not qualify for removal under these circumstances, it is generally very basic information that a citation can quickly and easily be found for. Restoring material wouldn't take too long but the rate of removal would require perhaps three more editors to follow Seicer round and restore the removed material with sources. I have advised him to give a cursory check of the subject before removing material. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There's not really a lot I can do here. I don't do a lot of writing, so I'm not really in a good position to talk to another administrator about what he is doing. And in any case, he is correct. Anyone can remove unsourced material from a BLP without discussion, if not only per WP:BLP, but per WP:V. J.delanoygabsadds21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough then. Policies aside, I didn't really think that some of his edits were improving articles. There are no better reasons than that. Anyway, I'll try discussing it with Seicer. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Three Questions
Are you watching my talk page? If so, thanks. It's nice to know people are ready to block my stalkers.
Seemed to be blocking most new accounts from being created, so I turned it off -- you may want to look at it further. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, JD. I already e-mailed you about my semi-retirement, didn't I? Well, now's the time for me to "officially" retire. Somehow, it has been a little better for me to live life when I'm not on Wikipedia. Feel free to add your signature on my talk page. Good luck to you and your Huggling! SF3(talk!)01:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am a teacher at the school that uses IP Address 209.254.252.186. Thanks for recently catching and warning our students about vandalism. I highly doubt any of them saw your warning. Please block our IP address using a school / soft block. We have had such a block before and it worked very well.--209.254.252.186 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Aaaargh. I had extraordinarily bad timing. Hours after making the above request, our IT contractors switched us over to a new ISP and a new IP address. I know there has been no vandalism from this IP address, but could you please block this new IP address in the same manner? I'd rather not wait until our students start vandalizing again. --173.10.39.153 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If you prefer, you can contact me at this User ID, too. Yes, all three edits in this section have come from the same person. --EtonTeacher (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Faster than a speeding bullet
Or perhaps I should say, Wow, you are lightening fast on the AIV. I'm going to start checking to see if you're active when I'm online first, and if you are, I will probably ignore AIV. I keep getting "already blocked" notices when I try to be a Helpful Admin and block vandals when you are around. (If this is obscure or unclear, its a compliment.) KillerChihuahua?!?21:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
On a similar note, you nailed this vandal with a block so fast it caused an edit conflict with my Final Warning (which he'd received several of anyway). Awesome work, thanks J. Doc Tropics14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw your friendlily worded note to this IP and thought I might inform you that each and every one of that IP's contributions look to me to have been disruptive. A clearer warning in order? 217.209.96.233 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for the problem due to the code upgrade of the bot. I have narrowed it down and fixed the bug that caused it. Please release the block so that the bot can continue to function properly. Thanks! --Jutiphan | Talk - 11:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user talk page. Much appreciated. P.S. I joke-hate you because you're faster than me. :P DanielDeibler (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So my addition that "All organisms die" is not relevant. Surely this is the most important difference between organisms and non-organisms. Perhaps the academics here disagree. --86.143.242.21 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
sorry
Hi, J.delanoy!
I'm really sorry about the pages I edited earlier.
I didn't know what I was thinking, so I WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN!
I promise.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop princess 1 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I requested my talk page be protected at WP:RPP but the admin there thought it was already protected. But my log says it was protected on March 28, last year. Would you be able to protect my talk page for at least 3 days? Momusufan (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. :-) I posted a request above to also put a school block our new IP address 173.10.39.153, but I think you may have missed it. Please see above for details. Or maybe I didn't provide enough details? --173.10.39.153 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You have deleted and edit I made to the Trinity Pawling School on the grounds that it was 'unconstructive'. Please clarify your reasoning here. I am an alumnus of this school and my edit is both factual and verifiable--based on my experience as well as past and recent conversations with both fellow alumni and the current headmaster. In fact, I would be happy to arrange a conference call.
Or do you have some agenda to suppress accurate information intended to help past and current victims of child sexual abuse. If I do not hear from you by the end of the business day, I will escalate this forthwith.
I'll ask somewhere else. Looks like you don't appreciate my help at your talk page so I no longer need to help at this talk page. -- IRP☎02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, this was only to be helpful, not harmful. If you don't appreciate my help then I won't help anymore. -- IRP☎23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you also blank that user and user talk page except for your unblock? They have obviously been copied from another user's userspace.— DædαlusContribs00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nomura's jellyfish
Odd things are going on at the Nomura's jellyfish article and I don't have the time or the energy to fix them. Noticed that you did the last revert, so perhaps you'll have the evnergy to fix this.
I used to be a high-edit count editor and left when I started getting too angry. So excuse me for keeping anon. I can't afford to get sucked into this again. 64.65.79.218 (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi... I don't know if you saw that you'd been reverted. The user is now blocked (again), but I've decided not to revert in case the editor's removals might be interpreted as a content dispute rather that simple vandalism -- in which case my further reversion might be seen as edit-warring. --Rrburke(talk)20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Might want to take a look at this
I don't know what you would want to do in this situation, but this user is starting to threaten admins, and as you are the person who blocked him, I thought that you should know.--Iner22 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. I don't usually take stuff like that seriously, and if it gets worse, I will disable his talk page access. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:J.delanoy. 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.
(Push that button) 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I also left a note on WT:PW to say that I have done so. J.delanoygabsadds 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there a way to format those 
yahoo.com
