User talk:RexNL

	Leave a message
	Archive 1 Archive 2

Please post new messages at the bottom of this page (or use the "leave a message" button) and sign your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). Thank you.

Damnit

You reverted before me 13 times in just a few minutes! :).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. :-P RexNL 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent help needed

Thanks for reverting the erased discussion page on the Huemul Project. The problem we are experiencing is that an anon user IP 200.xx.xx.xx keeps erasing all negative comments and warnings, as you can see from the history log. He has done it three times. Two of them today and, from previous history, he will continue to do it. The previous history includes the article which he has been also partially erasing and re-writing in a very slanted way and with personal atacks to everyone that doesn't agree with him. What do you suggest can be done? Jclerman 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest talking to the user via his/her talk, e.g. by giving a warning. If that doesn't work, I would report the problem here or leave a message on my talk page. Regards, RexNL 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user does not have a talk page, but uses a dynamic IP that is 200.xx.xx.xx. Only the 200 keeps constant, and does not respond to critiques and requests in the article's talk page. That's the problem. He has rv-ed his insulting paragraph several times in a few hours. Already 2 or 3 wiki admins have deleted the paragraph in question, to no avail. Jclerman 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it keeps reiterating. By now it is 4 or 5 cycles of article rvs. Jclerman 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page. RexNL 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! user:guigue and myself are sandboxing a fully reviewed version of the article. Jclerman 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace vandalism and reversion

It may be better to report this fellow and attempt a block (I don't think its IP is on the careful-list, is it??) (though it's true 3RR doesn't apply to simple vandalism, of course, it becomes an endurance contest otherwise...) Schissel-nonLop! 21:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pay attention

block me for 24 hours --141.154.54.184 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RexNL 21:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding external links

Sorry, I thought Wikipedia wanted external links to relevant non-commercial web sites. I will stop adding to the articles.

Thank you, mate. RexNL 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rc

Goodness, you're quick. aa v ^ 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed is my middle name. ;-) RexNL 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Why didn't you remove all of the external links on the Elliptical Trainer article?

I didn't remove all external links, I removed the links I found unnecessary. The article is quite prone to be a target for spammers, so we have to be selective. RexNL 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical Trainer

Here is the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_trainer

Thanks, I remember it now. RexNL 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article part deletion

About the article part delete without explanation, sorry, now i guess i did it right. Sorry about any inconvenience

It's alright. Your apologies are appreciated. RexNL 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Rex, I am sorry about what I did on my vandalism. I don't vandalize anymore pages, so can you give me tips on editing?

Hi, I'm glad that you made the wise choice not to vandalize anymore. You may want to look at our tutorial, get help, or skim through our open tasks, but you can write about whatever interests you, from aardvark to Zulu. RexNL 23:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR

I'm a big NASCAR fan so how do I join this site? I see alot of usernames. Oh yeah, sorry I threatened you!

In the top right, you will see a button "Sign in / create account". There you can create a user name. You don't even need to fill in your email address to sign up! RexNL 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Rex, 24.137.117.144 is vandalizing my user page (check the history). Could you please block him? He's done it twice now...--Dali-Llama 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a final warning. The next time he does it he will be blocked. RexNL 09:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JHMM13

Thanks for the user page revert. I owe you one. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. RexNL 09:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:212.56.128.186

User talk:212.56.128.186 This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to vandalism. Further acts of vandalism from this IP may result in another immediate block without warning. I'm not sure if it was you who issued this message but this must have arrive to all the ISP user as we're all behind the same N.A.T or something liek that so all our outer IP is the same...Personally I cant be blamed really because I never edited any wikipage but I felt in obligation to spply you this info, I don't pretend you answer and I understand your role, Just some info really

Hi, it is very likely that the IP address you are using is a shared address. That means that multiple users use the same address and therefore you will probably receive messages that were not meant for you, but for other contributors using that address. If you don't want to receive such unwanted messages anymore, I'd advise you to open a user account (very easy, just choose a user name and password here). Sorry for the inconvenience, RexNL 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant

OK, I understand the problem. I will unblock you, on the premise that you don't get involved in edit wars in the coming days

You might want to check his contributions page, then, as even after this condition he has been adding sockpuppet tags to User entries. --166.102.89.210 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is your first contribution on Wikipedia. Do you have a dynamic IP address or do you want to disguise your identity? I this complex situation I'd like to know who is who. RexNL 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham - Mr. Cain has registered in excess of 100 accounts that have been indefinitely blocked for vandalism and other abuse, and so for the past few weeks, he has simply been utilizing dynamic IP's assigned by his rural ISP (they can be easily spotted in the subnets 166.102.89.* & 166.102.104.*, although he has been known to utilize connections via BellSouth and gcsu.edu when available) to continue his abuse. - Chadbryant 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cain may be a repeated sockpuppeteer and a majority of those accounts are most likely his, but there are a few more accounts and IPs that Chadbryant has been tagging with Witham template even though they are not Alex Cain's accounts. The 2 accounts I'm talking about are User:PyterTaravitch and User:24.131.237.219. Those accounts commited vandalism in a style very similar to the ways of Chadbryant.

PyterTaravitch uploaded an alleged image of User:TruthCrusader and called TruthCrusader by the name that only Chadbryant has been calling TruthCrusader everytime he shows up on Wikipedia, which is Stephen Signorelli. He then went on to vandalize TurthCrusader's user page with that image. After confronting Chadbryant about his actions on another page, 24.131.237.219 sent me a threatening message on my talk page and in the comment box of another page.

If Chadbryant can accuse anyone of sockpuppetry and stick DickWitham tags on any page he wants with minimal evidence, then he sure as hell can take some accusations thrown his way when there's a sockpuppet doing his dirty deeds. If you look at the history of those two pages, Chadbryant just deleted the comments about the sock and tried to bury the truth by adding Witham tag. tv316 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cain has a long history of using various disguises in order to play both sides of an online dispute. Mr. Cain is also well-aware of User:TruthCrusader's real name, and has made numerous references to it. I suggest you do some research (as well as a traceroute on User:24.131.237.219, which is merely tagged with the actual location of the IP, not the DickWitham tag as you frauduently claim) before you insert your $0.02 next time. - Chadbryant 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long history of stirring shit up. As far as doing research goes, I'm not going to do research on a petty newsgroup war that should have been resolved a long time ago. And are you not replacing my comments on PyterTaravich's page with your DickWitham tag? There you go again trying to twist my comments around in your favour. tv316 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it very clear that you are not interested in having a legitimate, factual discussion, and that you are still upset over being proven wrong regarding the WWF-to-WWE date as debated on WWE Undisputed Championship. I kindly suggest you find a different target for harassment, because I don't see the need to engage you in your petty rantings anymore. - Chadbryant 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who feels like taking the time to sort through the history of Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship and separate your vandalism from original comments will see that I tried to have a legitimate factual discussion with you, but you acted hostile and childish. You keep mentioning that I'm upset about being proven wrong. I was never proven wrong. Everybody knows that May 5 is the date that they announced the change to the world. There was that bit with Live Audio Wrestling about the President of WWE Canada announcing the immediate change, but you brushed it off in your typical way. By saying, "That's nice, except that the press release issued by WWE was dated the 6th," you were the one who did not want to have a legitimate factual discussion. Lastly, your paranoia is getting really old. I am not targeting you for harassment. I am defending myself and my views. As you once gave me advice to do so, I am now "wearing a cup." tv316 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment that neither Chad Byrant NOR Alex Cain are aware of my real name. Chad Byrant has, from the begining, been under the delusion I am one of the people he has feuded with on usenet. Several Admins here do know my real name because I have talked to them OFFLINE and in real life over a variety of issues. TruthCrusader

How do you do it?

Wow, you're fast at reverting vandalism. What's your secret? Evan Robidoux 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was quite slow today... My secret? IRC. - RexNL 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 2

When I was a vandal, I wrote some pretty bad things and some were about you. So sorry and thanks for your responses yesterday. I will definitely be helpful in the future!

You're welcome. I forgive you. :o) RexNL 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of Vandalism enforcement

You tell me that I'm vandalising when wikipidia's offical policy states

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion.

I was simply editing my own talk page, and you tell me i'm vandalising. I think you are over extending your police powers.

You were deleting warning messages, which is not appropriate. RexNL 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the offical policy stating that it is against Wikipidia's offical policy to delete warning messages.

Please see WP:TP. We even have a template for such behaviour: Template:Usertalk-sprotect. RexNL 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

I'm reading your discussion page and I here this guy complaining about you. Isn't that a personal attack?

No, this is a discussion about a Wikipedia policy, not about me. Everybody has the right to show his or her complaints about my contributions. Therefore I don't consider it a personal attack. See WP:NPA for more information. RexNL 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why can they complain about you? Your like the best reverter on the site. I mean if someone offended me or complained about me I would feel offened. Don't you when people do that to you?

I'm getting used to it. I've seen worse, like these kind of things. RexNL 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch and Freemasonry

I'm new to Wikipedia and I was unfamiliar with the edit protocols. I'm sorry.

I removed the Enoch and Freemasonry sections under the subjects "Hiram Abif" and "Enoch" because Enoch has nothing to do with Freemasonry or it rituals/symbolism.

Please refer to the following website which is a highly respected source for Masonic information/research:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry08.html

It's about halfway down the page.

Thanks for your response. I will redo your changes. RexNL 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:504 superbest.gif

Thanks for catching the blanking dozy me missed it on my watchlist. Discordance 01:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

—bbatsell ¿? 05:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:62.236.76.8

Hi, please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:62.236.76.8 and tell me is it still possible to edit pages if you are a registered user. The city's network spans from elementary schools to universities, so it's very probable that some of the thousands of users are vandalizing the Wikipedia. I agree with you it's wrong and punishable, but if you ban the IP 62.236.76.8 (AFAIK the firewall/proxy/traffic filter of the city, outsourced to a communications company Novo or WM-data) it would mean that thousands of people could not contribute to wikipedia. (62.236.76.8 11:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, if your IP address is blocked, you won't be able to edit, even if you have an account. RexNL 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80.0.118.203

80.0.118.203 needs to be blocked indefintally I would say, having just looked at his contributions. I also noticed you have reverted alot of his vandalism aswell. His user talk is User_talk:80.0.118.203 --Hamedog^Talk|@ 12:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I blocked him already. If he continues vandalizing after his block expires, he will be blocked longer. RexNL 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplayfucks

CF is as notable as Fandom Wank or YTMND are; both of which have articles on Wiki. There's even a wiki on "Chuck Norris Facts", and Cosplayfucks isn't notable? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but where's the consistancy? Hiroe 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]