Jump to content

User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerrykfinley3

Thanks for the quick confirmation. But, I noticed that you deleted the information I submitted as evidence. Any reason why? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It had already been reported above. There was no need to submit a second case. You, of course are welcome to resubmit it under the "Comments by other users" heading. Though, it really is not necessary at this point. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. I did the report and a second editor chipped in. His observation is almost immaterial. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Did I get it backwards? It appeared as if you were the second user. My error. Either way, it ended up with the same result. Not really sure it is a big deal. You are of course welcome to resubmit your evidence. That said, the case will be closed shortly. Tiptoety talk 06:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you were the second user to open the same case. But like I said, it really does not matter. Tiptoety talk 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, on further looking at the report, it appears that the other editor and I submitted them at the same time. I don't know how the system did it but it combined them. I put the meat of the observations into it and tagged all the socks. It appears that the other editor noticed my work and did a report too. I think that the report should have all the facts as observed by me. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
[1]. Tiptoety talk 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The second sock really sealed the deal when he deleted my userpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalist POV pushing is back

You were the admin who blocked User:Stubes99 for single-mindedly and repeatedly making uncited claims about the importance of Hungary in all areas of world history. Just a "heads-up": the IP 83.177.142.170 seems to be making the same pattern of edits - categorizing everything under the sun as a Hungarian invention. - Special-T (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you a mail

I have sent you a mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

reply sent. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Has LibiBamizrach been notified about ARBPIA sanctions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Tiptoety, NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dodo's socks

Hi,

I agree that range blocks should be considered, as the experience shows he won't stop that easy. I know 25+ IPs that he has been using (usually disruptively). Once he experiences at first hand that he really can be stopped, he'll eventually give up (as his only intention so far has been to disrupt).
It should be noted that there is the technical aspect of multiple ranges concerned: mostly 92.225.. and 78.53. ... / occasionally 85.178..., a couple of times 92.227.. . I can draft a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse page for the purpose of a better overview.
It's also ironic that during the late evening hours of Sep. 20 he was threatening in German Wiki to pick a quarrel with the Wikimedia Foundation, demanding the removal of images he had once uploaded with his sock. Considering all the circumstances, one would almost welcome his 'petition' to Wikimedia... Best regards, Miacek (t) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have actually already implemented a rangeblock, and it worked (on that specific range though). Another option might be opening a ban discussion at WP:ANI. That will allow us to take some extra steps to prevent abuse. Tiptoety talk 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Did you miss this?

Jimbo's closure? Courcelles 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I sure did. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I unblocked User:MC10. This happened before, and I am virtually certain that he is telling the truth about there being another person who is socking. J.delanoygabsadds 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Tiptoety talk 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.44.188 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Carvoeiro's sockpuppets

Hi, you helped deal with Carvoeiro's sockpuppets in the past. Looks like there's a new one now so I thought you might want to take a look seeing as you've familiar with the evidence. I've opened an investigation and submitted evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carvoeiro

I haven't really dealt with anyone quite as persistent as this before and wondered if I should be doing anything further. Does the talk page need tagging in someway so everyone is aware of the repeated vandalism of the article by sockpuppets? Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already took care of it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

re: Ducks

So what's the deal with ducks? Quack, quack, quack. Waddle, waddle, waddle. Hey, I work for living. Fucken parasites. You're an admin, can't you do something about this? Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

About what, ducks? Tiptoety talk 17:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding DavidYork71

Good catch on Spuum (talk · contribs). DavidYork71 had been quiet for many months, usually he averages something like a new batch of socks every week or so. Seeing as Spuum appeared as soon as the last batch of socks got found out, it fits into the puzzle nicely. It also presents a nice behavioral match for DavidYork71's prior behavioral cues, and also presents some new areas of editing to watch out for. A fine catch all around. --Jayron32 16:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It took a little while for me to convince myself it was him, but after checking past CheckUser results and reviewing SPI archives I determined it was a confirmed sock. I have taken note of a few new ranges he is editing from, and as such will try and run checks weekly. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Tiptoety! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Request

Hi Tiptoety! :) I hope you are well - it has been a long time! Could you please update WP:FUNC (or find someone who will)? Some names appear to be missing from the list. ;) Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done [2]. Tiptoety talk 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Sock investigation

You previously commented at a sock investigation on this user, now there is another one, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLubber. Perhaps you may have some prior knowledge, experience and expertise to impart, with this particular case. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the rollback rights.

I'll put it to good use. :) ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That did not last long: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Twinkle_abuse_by_Gregorik. Please keep an eye on this fellow. Binksternet (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Joehazelton socks

Hi, could please protect my talk page and block 76.202.241.182 (talk · contribs)? Thanks! — goethean ॐ 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like other people got around to doing both things before me. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

IP Exemption?

Hi There.

Just wondered why you've taken me off the IP exemption list? I've been blocked twice in the past as collateral from IP blockings - the last time my talk page access was also revoked, and it could well happen again. a_man_alone (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear that any of the IPs you are editing through have blocks on them of any kind. As such, there is no need for IPblock exempt. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman

Please discuss. I noticed that you semi-protected it once for vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Tiptoety. An article that you salted last year, Drew Roy, is the subject of an unprotection request here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiptoety talk 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick Policy Question About a New Article

Is this article Gallery:Where's_God_When_I'm_Scared a violation of Wikipedia policy? I don't know about galleries. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep,  deleted. Tiptoety talk 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

An IP has raised a thread at WP:AN about you. No idea what they mean, but you deserve to be notified about it. Suspect the IP may not be able to do this themselves. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Must have been removed or archived as I do not see it. But thanks! Tiptoety talk 04:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Behar

Hello: a few days ago you semi-protected the Joy Behar article for a period of three days due to ongoing vandalism. The semi-protection has expired and the vandalism continues. Would you be willing to re-apply semi-protection? Thank you, BMRR (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 17:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) –BMRR (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DidiWeidmann/Xtinadbest

How's your certainty level on this one? Looking over account timing and obscure joint articles, I can see it. Undoing all the edits from a two-year old account is a daunting task, though, so I'm loathe to begin unless you are extremely certain.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty certian. They edited from the exact same IP (which is on one of the guys most popular ranges) with the exact same useragent as a ton of the other socks. That said, CU data has been wrong before. Tiptoety talk 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few days for the virtually inevitable backdraft to extinguish itself. He's an admin on some of the other Wikis. Wouldn't be the first case of good-hand/bad-hand we've encountered, and certainly won't be the last, either.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reviewed that person's unblock request and came here to ask you the same thing. It just seems very strange to me that a multi-project Wikipedian who identifies as a European esperantist and makes uncontroversial Switzerland-related edits would also operate a sock ring for the purpose of obsessively editing pop music articles. Have you considered possible errors such as another person in the household being responsible (timing etc.), or that IP being possibly reassigned to the puppetteer after or before DidiWeidmann used it? Thanks,  Sandstein  21:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to have a second checkuser look over the results. I'm agnostic on this one, but lean towards believing it's a good hand/bad hand situation. It's a very slight lean, though.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DidiWeidmann contacted me on de: here and asked for help. My general impression is that he is likely not the sockmaster; he comes across as slightly hysterical and clueless, but not as somebody who would operate a sock ring about pop music topics. I advised thim to knock off the assumptions of bad faith and to come up with a good explanation about who (a child in the household?) might have used his computer to do something like that.  Sandstein  22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
He has replied that he considers it impossible that somebody else used his computer, and that he cannot associate the edits by Xtinadbest to anybody he knows.  Sandstein  23:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed his post. He's been around for three years, and on WP-eo, spends his time doing stuff like adding coordinates to cities. Just doesn't seem like a likely sock. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I know DidiWeidmann. He made a very good work on WP-eo. --Pinof (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

←I apologize for the delayed reply, I was at work all day and just walked in the door. Now, there are a few explanations. For starters, this is a well played good hand/bad hand situations and it took a while for DidiWeidmann to be rooted out. It could be a situation where someone else (maybe a child, friend, spouse, etc...) had access to DidiWeidmann's account (which has happened before. A lot of us do not log out of our accounts on the machine we use to edit with primarily). Or this is a classic case of a false positive. I am leaning towards the latter. If there was even a hint that the contributions match those of Xtinadbest, I might say otherwise, but they don't. All of this said, while I will not been unblocking myself, I will not oppose an unblock. Hope this helps clarify things, Tiptoety talk 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)4

My account is now unblocked again. I thank everybody who sustaind and beleaved my that I had nothing to do with the mencioned sockpuppetery. The only explenation for me is that sombody of our neigbourhoud could get access to our WIFI. I shall in any case revise all my security mesures and if this was the case to find the person. Any how I am very happy, that my account is not blocked anymore. DidiWeidmann (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. :) Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqui, I have a possibly naive question: would checkuser not determine if (presuming behavioral confirmation) there are other socks in the drawer? (I'm up way past my bedtime, but I need to explain the potential source of naivety: I don't really grasp what areas share a small number of IPs and which ones have an IP for every household. For instance, I know that New Zealand has only a couple. Or at least, I think I know. So I've been told, anyway. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with John. I have to admit that I was dreading expanding that particular CCI. We're never going to finish it as it is. Psychologically, I'd much prefer that he be a different copyright problem. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like John kept some data and was able to perform a check (good on him). As for your question, technically we could just check the non-stale account (the suspected sock), and then run a single check on his IP or range to determine if there were anymore accounts related to that specific account...but there would be no way to link it to the master without having had some other account with ChcekUser data to compare it to. Often, in cases when we do not have anything to compare the suspected sock to, the request is declined as fishing. As for the amount of IPs, that really depends on what internet service provider the user is using. For example, AT&T has a huge list of allocated IPs assigned to them, meaning that people editing from their phones are far more likely to be found editing from a wide range of IPs. Does this help? Tiptoety talk 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. :) I've always been slighty confused by the SPI checkuser processes. That's a job I don't ever expect to volunteer for! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Shout out for Volunteers:

I noticed you served here, would you be willing to repeat the performance this year?. I ask because there's a call for help at the election talk page, and because you have the tools we need. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your prior warning

Regarding your prior warning here to Spacefarer (talk · contribs), please see recent actions by that user, on the same topic. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kim Cardassian

Hey, if you're still around, can I ask a favor? I posted my findings at the case above, but I would like to get a second opinion since this turned up so many accounts. Thanks! TNXMan 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Tiptoety talk 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick comment about my finding - the first group you noted was editing behind a "suspected network sharing device", which I read as a proxy. The UA was pretty unique and matched with the other accounts, which is why I went with  Confirmed. In any case, thanks for taking a look! TNXMan 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I pretty much agree with your results, I just do not feel the technical match is enough to call it "confirmed". More like "highly likely." ;-) Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Many of the socks found were also on this page, which I was compiling for a user that persistently removed the same data from the Chris Dodd campaign article. Therefore, since this is the same user as Kim Cardassian, many sleeper accounts can be found on the linked page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have not already done so, you may want to re-open the SPI case and list those socks there simply for the purpose of keeping a good record. I can attest to the fact that SPI archives are a valuable tool when performing CUs. Tiptoety talk 05:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection on talk page?

Hi. :) I WP:CSD#F9ed an image this morning, and followed up to find several other images of concern from the same contributor. Twinkle had notified him of the F9 (on my request) automatically, but when I went to manually add notice to the PUF listing for the other images, I found his talk page had been fully protected. Since talk pages are not typically protected even for retired people (at least now; I don't remember how we did things in 2008 :D), I figured I'd better ask: is there a reason that User talk:SomeUsr should now be fully protected? Should I remove the CSD notice I already placed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, looking at the userpage it appears this user invoked their right to vanish. As such, we generally bend the rules slightly and allow for things like talk pages to be fully protected. I'm not sure of the specifics surrounding this case, but seeing as they are still no longer editing I see no real reason it needs to be unprotected. If you want more clarity, I might recommend contacting the administrator who performed the talk page protection. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You only did the user page. All right; I'll do that. It's not a big deal to me either way, but I feel a bit uneasy about having unwittingly edited it to place the F9 warning, but not to let him know about the PUF. Seems like I should be consistent either way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanish

Sorry to bother you with this matter. If you can please post a Right to vanish tag on Antony1103 and Antony110389, since my posting privileges were taken away. I will also post a right to vanish tag on this user as soon as I get done deleting some personal information. Thank you... Antony11031989 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Please email the blocking administrator. I am not going to tag your userpage as such without his permission. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sikmir - one more

Sorry, but I omitted User:Abondarev from the suspected sock list, though he, too, only edited on the AfD page. (I confused him with the now-blocked Abusalimov.) How do I add him in now that the SPI has closed? Sorry about that, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You could re-open the case, but I went ahead and ran a check and they appear Red X Unrelated...which, is odd. That said, this person seems to know how to clean up their technical trail. There may also be some meatpuppetry involved here. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the check and update, I appreciate it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please re-check this case? After taking a look at this unblock request I'm somewhat inclined to agree with the unblock request – behavioral evidence really doesn't match up. How strong was the evidence? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The technical evidence shows that they edited from the exact same IP as two of the other socks, but do have a slightly different Useragent. Feel free to make the call on this one based on your judgment. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RfAr Yellow Monkey

I wish to make the following comment at the page. The edit window was headed by an advice that clerk assistance be sought in case one had a doubt regarding one's comment, I would like to make the following comment. Please have a look. Thanks in advance.

Statement from Yogesh Khandke, the editor that initiated the AN/I that led to the RfC/YellowMonkey, that led to this RfAr

(1) (a)I was blocked for 15 days without any warning, or other similar less severe measures.(b)The block message carried a cryptic comment trolling and pov pushing at British Empire and talk[3] I messaged YM requesting him to detail his objections, he did not. (c)After my block expired I quoted wikipedia blocking procedure on his block page , and pointed out that perhaps he had not followed it, and assuming so his actions were not of the standards expected of an administrator. He mentioned to other editors about my request to him to explain, in very casual terms, but did not engage me in a discussion. He had a month's time to do so, during which he continued to edit, and exercise administrator functions. (d)During the AN/I he apologised etc. (e)However YM's reluctance to discuss comes across as unprofessional, perhaps he needs to demonstrates a willingness to understand this issue, to be an effective administrator. This is without prejudice to his performance as an editor, he has over 100000 edits which I consider is awesome (I have only 3000+). (2) There have been a few comments, above about a lack of understanding about wp:rs, and POV pushing by editors from a certain region. I solicit that evidence be produced in support of such allegations, or they be withdrawn. (3)A point that has been going around in support of YM is that he has jumped in to tackle difficult nationalist POV pushers, and that the quality of the project would be adversely affected in his absence. My comment is that Wikipedia should not be at the mercy of swashbuckling lone rangers, who have demonstrated lack of understanding of Wikipedia rules and conventions.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to NickD: A case of not reading carefully, and making false allegations of witch-hunt. (1)Nick alleges witch hunt, even though I have in my edit summary made a request for not bringing proceedings ex parte, I have pleaded that YM be given more time to respond. Also the statement contact at home was preceded by a rider, if rules allow[4]. In a similar circumstances I would greatly appreciate being contacted by all means possible, I was merely using the philosophy Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas is a good guideline in the matter.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

←Your statement looks fine. There is no need for such a long header though, just use Statement by Yogesh Khandke. Feel free to post at the RfAr at your convenience. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ThanksYogesh Khandke (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Tiptoety, I recently corresponded with a management firm of a Marcin Dylla because an image had been added by them to his page, but had a author different from the uploader so I explained what necessary steps are to provide evidence of permission. At the same time, this management firm copy-pasted Dylla's bio from their homepage to the Wiki page. I restored a previous page version because I thought the new version was purely promotional and unencyclopedic and left a talk page message that stated this. Now the management emailed me complaining that the content added by them is missing. Should I put it back up because it has more content with a template saying that it's COI and promotional hoping someone will rewrite it properly or respond differently? I don't want to antagonize them and the image certainly is valuable for the article, but I was also earlier told they have no time or staff so I don't expect any engagement on the talk page and Wiki is not a tool for promotion. How best to proceed (please excuse the wordiness of my request)? Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Hekerui. This is actually a rather common problem, and often times the company or entity that is trying to self-promote is unaware that they are violating Wikipedia policies simply out of ignorance for them. Because of this, more times then not they will comply with our policies once educated. My recommendation is to reply to their email (or how ever you are communicating with them), and explain that their addition violated both our COI policy and our policy on self-promotion (or spam). Then explain that they are welcome to make suggestions on the articles talk page and/or send you a copy of what they want added and have you proofread it (for attribution the first option is generally preferred). Does this help? Tiptoety talk 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for replying. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Native to Neptune

Courtesy notification to inform you that I just modified the block that you applied to this user. He posted an unblock request that was nothing but an attempt at disruption, so I removed his ability to edit his own talk page. --GraemeL (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KAPITALIST88

Why was this page deleted and why does the deletion reason cite an aparently unrelated page on ca.wikipedia?©Geni 01:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the link is broken. I meant for it lead to CAT:TEMP (back in the days when we were deleting per it). I can undelete if there is something you need in that talk page. Tiptoety talk 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball Fanatic/User:Humor Guy

Just to let you know that I am currently negotiating an unblock with him on User talk:Humor Guy, just so that I'm not going over your head or anything. –MuZemike 21:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Improving SPI

Hey. Since you were (if memory serves) the architect behind improving the SPI process, I was wondering if we could start looking into some way to improve our archiving. There's not really any way to look through past cases and try to match people. Like, right now it basically comes down to someone on IRC saying, "hey, does this pattern look familiar to anyone?" Tnxman suggested we create some list of hidden categories that we match to a case, which could be viable. WP:LTA worked to aid this in some capacity, but it hasn't really been maintained. We'd need the solution to be relatively easy to use and maintain, which I suppose complicates it. Another thing to make it more complex is that I'm not sure we'd want it to be open to the public, i.e. restricted to clerks. Anyway, I thought I'd just contact you to get the ball rolling. Let me know what you think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you about this soon. Tiptoety talk 05:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

          Happy Holidays!
Dear Tiptoety,
Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;)
Love,
--Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SunnyA

Looks like an unblock request from a user you blocked was placed on hold nearly three weeks ago and nobody informed you or asked for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like someone missed this. I went ahead and commented directly at the unblock request. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

please..

pull the rest of this plug. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety talk 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99

I'd like to inform you that I've found recently some IP edits of our old friend Stubes99 and I reverted them by myself (e.g. [5] or [6]. Is it ok how I've proceeded? Or should I announce you first before reverting in the future? Thx in advance for your answer (Iaaasi (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC))

He's coming back again, again, and again. Can you please protect those pages against him? (Iaaasi (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC))
 Done - Sorry for the delay. Tiptoety talk 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again... 2 problems:

Knock, knock...

Now that I have your attention, thank you so much for blocking that troll on my talk page. I asked the guy nicely not to post copyvios and, well, you know the rest. Happy new year.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year, Tiptoety talk 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Help! Nikolai Gogol

Hi there! Belated thanks for approving my rollback rights! Now however, there's a situation I can't seem to correct: please have a look at Nikolai Gogol and Mykola Gogol and their talk pages. I left a message for at User talk:Lexusuns but it 's been ignored. Can you help? Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Connection to Sock

Hi Tiptoety. I incorrectly added the below info to the archived ANI discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:DC - compromised account?. I'm not sure it's related, but User:Sheodred was temp blocked in November for a very similar userpage vandalism edit, which he/she justified with the "those darn college kids" explanation. I bring this up because the above account supported DC in the recent "Irish Band" controversy at Talk:U2 and has been inactive since. The Interior(Talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested unprotection of template

Hi Tiptoety. An editor has requested that a template that you fully protected be unprotected; see here. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The request has been archived, so I assume it's been resolved. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We meet again

Remember when you blocked me as Ms dos mode? Well, I'm back, and like a phoenix, I rebounded into such a constructive user I actually got the rollback right. T3h 1337 b0y 03:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd be happy to block you again if you so desire :) –MuZemike 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Invited! Come Celebrate Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary!

<font=3> You're invited to help celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary! Visit this link for details. An informal celebration will take place at the AboutUs office located at 107 SE Washington Street, Suite 520 in Portland on Saturday, January 15, 2011. An Open Space Technology meeting is scheduled from 5pm to 7pm, with a party to follow. Admission is free!

--Another Believer (Talk) 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Range block?

Hey,

I'm wondering whether you might be so kind as to scan your eye of this.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Avi took care of it. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quad Demon101

Hey. On this case, you listed an account, lairmariew (talk · contribs). But that account doesn't exist. Was there someone else it should have been? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_31&oldid=1146469627"