|
User talk:J.delanoy/Archive 25
Happy New Year! I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010. December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Happy New Year
Star Wars 'thank you'
wow, thanks! J.delanoygabsadds 17:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
meetup!short notice but: Wikipedia:Meetup/Dallas-Fort_Worth -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Ari Meiseli am Amr2020eg and i built an article under name Ari Meisel and it speedy delete and want to tell me about the points that make it delete, s we will remove it from the topic. in fact i don't want make advertsiting or anything, it's all about a man have good conribution in the field of green buildings. thanks for your help & for any further clarification don't hesitate to tell me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr2020eg (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Homeland SecurityYup, thanks for the correction on my revert. I was just following one guy, without realizing that there is a 4chan attack going on. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For you...
A requestHi Mr J.delanoy, Could I ask you to do me a small favour? Tim Song is currently away on vacation for a few weeks. According to the message on his talk page I need to ask a sysop to add my name to this list in order to be able to use the Kissle application. Would you be so kind as to do this for me please? I would be very grateful. Many thanks & Seasonal Greetings :-) -- Marek.69 talk 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
QuestionThis might seem stupid but apparently you told people that im probably not a sock/sockrunner. (The CU results are the reason why I put in probably) Do you think that people still think otherwise?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreal articleThis article has been the site of problems regarding an uofficial patch. The only thing that could be called a reliable source would be a single post in the developer's forum that acknowledges the fact that the source was indeed distributed to select individuals[1], on that note I have a question - Would this classify as a reliable source? I know that forum postings is explicitly a violation of WP:SPS, but one thing I haven't gotten my head around is whether, if a forum post is made by an authority on the topic, like the senior director as is allegedly the case here, does this change the situation? One last thing - I would appreciate it if you could chime in on the debate that's going on at the article's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Possible sock puppets of User:FLPTrainorHi J.! I am not sure of this, but, because of the similarity of edits, I am wondering if you might use CheckUser to determine if User:Minsteire is a sock puppet of indefinitely blocked editor, User:FLPTrainor? I notice a similar tendency to overlink and user internal redirects for wikilinks that were already functioning properly and not in need of “fixing.” I don’t want to waste my time guiding this editor on these issues if in fact s/he is a blocked editor attempting to evade that block. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Persistant vandalHi! Back in november you placed a 31 hour block on 65.51.227.31. Since the block expired there have been repeated vandalism edits from the IP with a multitude of warnings, the latest being about an hour ago. Could you please take a look at the IP's talk page, for warnings after your block, and consider applying a considerably longer block? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Essay on consensus-buildingI've been puttering around with an essay about consensus and wouldn't mind your commentary if you're so inclined. It's my first attempt at starting an essay.--otherlleft 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Rollback requestHi J.delanoy, May I have rollback please? I understand the three circumstances in which it may be used. I've been finding Twinkle a little slow, plus I find it annoying that Twinkle rollback is not marked as a minor edit. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just reverted an edit by this IP and warned them about vandalizing. In looking through their talk page, they have been warned many times for their disruptive edits and even blocked five times. It would appear that they have no intention of stopping. Could you block them, please? Upon further research, they have actually been blocked eight times and the last block just ran out. That definitely looks like a strictly vandal account. Thank you. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a new one.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Show/Hide feature on templatesGood afternoon! I'm trying to merge the big Awards section on Todd Field into a new template, but since it takes up abundant room, I need some help on including the Show/Hide feature. I saw on your userpage that you have fair knowledge on templates and wikimarkup, so I came to you. If you can't find a solution, you may point me to another administrator if you can. Thanks for your time! Schfifty3 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Please re-blockGreetings J.delanoy - sorry to hassle you, but towards the end of last year you placed a 2-week block on User talk:168.171.60.254 and, as was to be expected (from their lengthy record), they've been actively vandalising again once the block is up. Could you please do something about it. I've made a few random checks to see if there are actually any constructive edits from that IP address and drew a blank. Thanks. --Technopat (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) New Wallflowers98 sockI got a new one, Toolfan1997 (talk · contribs) blocked pretty much immediately by Gogo Dodo. Also I happened to see your public block log after seeing the CU result and noticed that 2 of his sockpuppet accounts impersonated me (Momusufan). I know you were tempted to rangeblock him but I think this could be a good reason to do so because I was unaware of this until I saw the block log. Some of the filters may need to be updated by someone familiar with that, mainly filter 82 and filter 278. Thanks. Momo san Gespräch 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I got another suspected one too that is not blocked, Trekfan95 (talk · contribs). Momo san Gespräch 06:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a sock, but I found Hal2090 (talk · contribs) who made the same edit at Man of the House (1995 film) after the previous sock got blocked. Momo san Gespräch 19:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you be able to protect Man of the House (1995 film) if my RPP request gets declined? It appears another sock is back on the page. Momo san Gespräch 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Ping!You've got mail. Willking1979 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) thxwell, that was random.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Trying to write an article about Dark Fall: Lost SoulsHi, I'm trying to write an article about Dark Fall: Lost Souls. As I have no experience in creating articles I'd be grateful if you could find the time to look it over and possibly give a few tips on how to improve it. Jarkeld (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
pingAbout your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments, Dual Use (talk · contribs) has begun editing again. Could you look into into it again? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
J. delanoy saves the day again.Hey there old friend, It's always a pleasure to have the support of administrators when working on vandalism reversion. I think I went through about 5 or so vandalism-only accounts today with Huggle =]. After frequent vandalism to my userpage, I finally had it RPP'd to prevent that sort of thing. Anyways, just leaving my thanks for considerably helping in the vandal(ism) removal process! GLaDOS (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Unconstructive? Jabar broke his jaw, I am merely making the article ACCURATE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.202.37.203 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) thank you for blocking 68.32.161.25thank you for blocking 68.32.161.25. This person has been vandalizing many of my edits, but, being fairly new to Wiki (as far as actually contributing) I did not know how to report it. Also, I thought some of it might be a mistake. This person is very clever because in checking my history, I knew that some of the edits were not mine, but, again, figured it was my inexperience. Personally, I think 48 hours is not long enough for this "editor", but I defer to your knowledge and expertise. I do know that there is such a thing as other people having the IP of a former vandal, so perhaps you are giving the person the benefit of the doubt. Whatever the case, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
HiRegarding your findings at [2], the user who filled this request, is now citing your findings as "proof" that I am the meatpuppet of User:WIMV [3][4][5]. I'm a long standing user with thousands of edits, I am nobody's "meatpuppet". I really appreciate it if you could study [6], and [7] to realize what the core of the problem is. As you can see, the user who filed this report, has been in violation of several core polices from WP:NPOV and WP:consensus to WP:NPA and .WP:3RR. I hate being constantly bullied and personally attacked, when I am actually trying a uphold Wikipedia's core content policies. I would really be grateful, if you could further clarify your findings, so this user does not think that he has a license to label and attack me. FYI, another administrator who is more familiar with the history of this dispute, has also raised this issue [8] --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Dual UseRe: [9] and [10]. So is Dual Use a sock of Nrcprm2026, or not? Your latest comment seems to indicate not. If not can you officially declare them unrelated? I ask because they are currently indefinitely blocked and the blocking admin seems to be under the impression that they are Nrcprm2026, see [11]. Anything you can do to clear up this matter would be appreciated I am sure. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC) KissleI'd like to try it out, could you please add my name to the Kissle permission page? Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day NYC You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! Barnstar
Hi J.delanoy, just a quick note regarding this case, or more specifically regarding the sockmasters user page. Do you think that you could remove everything currently on User:Bambifan101 (except for the link to simple:User:Bambifan101) and replace it with
Unblock is
Funny username blocksHello, J.delanoy. I'm looking at the block log, seeing your username blocking ridiculous names like "The account password is poop" or "The account password is vomit" or "The account password is crap" or those. It's funny. Blocky cuzco (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. It's me again. I looked at the Wikipedia:AIV, and found this abusive user User:Ryan3896490. Please block him. He removed warnings on his talk page to make it look like no one has saw his edits. Blocky cuzco (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) FYI[12]. I can't find an SPI case related to this, so was this block based upon a random CU? JamieS93 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
HeyIt looks like you made a mistake in the blocking of User:Baseball1015. I highly doubt he's a sock, and most of his contribs are reverting vandalism. Excuse me if I'm wrong. Connormah (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto on that, J. This just doesn't seem like a classic MascotGuy sock. The naming convention, use of edit summaries, types of edits, none of it fits. If it is indeed MG, this is by far the most lucid sock I've ever seen. He might well be on a MG server, but I'm fairly convinced this isn't him. Just my opinion and I'll defer to yours. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey! (AIV)Been a while since I've bugged you here. Anyways, if you're on, are you willing to get your banhammer out? There's a backlog at AIV and some of them are really starting to get annoying. —LedgendGamer 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Any connection to ...Do you have any connection to User:Blocky cuzco? The editor (who, importantly, admits to being 9 yrs old) has you listed on a edit notice for his talk page but I don't see any connection (like a mentorship or the like) implied, only that he took one of messages to assume you'd watch his back. I only ask as the user has uploaded two image files, citing them as free but clearly failing copyright or other NFC policy, and if he is 9 years old, I'm worried about trying to explain this to him from several different perspectives. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Large sock drawer opened, many socks blocked, but did I get them all?Hello. On 1/16 I blocked Oneforanother1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as being a sock of GayleNuffer (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected). Today my user talk page was vandalized by Oneforanother2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). On a hunch, I checked and confirmed that both Oneforanother1 and Oneforanother2 were created at 13:29 on 13 January 2010. Combing through the new user registration logs, I also discovered the following: 13 January 2010:
14 January 2010:
All eight were blocked and tagged for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GayleNuffer. Without getting too BEANSy here, could you check and see if there were others that I missed, and/or examine the underlying IP to see if there a better solution available than playing Whac-A-Mole? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
LeeD vandal acountI came across Diicbtv2otwtdod23 (talk · contribs) and made abusive edit summaries againest another user in the usual manner that the LeeD vandal does. He got autoconfirmed on purpose to do what he did. Can you run a checkuser to see if he is on a different IP range? Here is his edit history. Momo san Gespräch 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Documentary Organization of CanadaHi, I saw your name in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Shortly after I placed advert and COI tags on Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC), User:Cirt speedily deleted it as blatant advertising. I've asked him twice to restore the page, perhaps as one of my userpages, so I could winnow out the spam and convert it to a valid stub that meets our guidelines. He refused the first time and has not been on the wiki since my second request. I'm a bit surprised than an admin would refuse a good faith request to restore a speedied article on a notable organization so it could be salvaged, and was wondering if you could accommodate me. I'd prefer to pare down the existing article rather than start from scratch as Cirt suggests, and since I'm the one doing the work, I hope that's a good enough rationale. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Heads up You might want to take a look at him: J.delannoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I found him from the history of With the Lights Out, which also merits some investigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Possible sock puppets of User:FLPTrainorHi J.! Further to our earlier interaction regarding the above-captioned editor, I think that User:Rachel-K-T might be yet another sock of said editor. The account was created at 18:15 on January 18, and by 18:34 was making the same legal article edits as we had earlier reverted by socks associated with User:FLPTrainor. Another reason I suspect a sock puppet is that it seems odd that the first edit by a brand spanking new wikieditor would be made using WikiCleaner and have this edit summary: “WikiCleaner 0.98 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!” And, to be honest, that edit summary lacks any of the wikilinks that I seem to recall WikiCleaner usually leaves. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. It is very much appreciated. — SpikeToronto 04:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If this was to be done only by an Administrator, then please revert/override me and given me the requisite, ensuing <smack>. Thanks J! — SpikeToronto 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
How do I disable editing sections on my userpage?Hence the section heading, I figured I'd ask you a question again: I am trying to disable editing of the sections of my biography when on the standard User:SchfiftyThree page. Do you know of a way? I thought that "_NOTOC_" or something would help, but I honestly don't know since I have low experience with userpage design. :-) Schfifty3 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
vandal 68.32.161.25Another one of the pages I contributed to was vandalized today. see: Paul C. Doherty. Mugginsx (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Messages about a 'disruptive' userHi again J.delanoy! I have received some messages on my talk page Disruptive editor and Hubschrauber from user Sherlock4000 about the actions of Hubschrauber729. Sherlock4000 previously helped identify Ecuadorian Stalker as a sock of Historian19. User Hubschrauber is using a completely different style of editing (not obvious sock), but still seems to be upsetting other editors with his edits. Would you mind casting your eyes on this one. Cheers :-) -- Marek.69 talk 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) QuestionI don't know how to get through to a user who is adding wholesale data points to numerous articles that are uncited and in several cases clearly erroneous, yet does not respond to posts and warnings on his talk page, User talk:190fordhouse. This user has been warned multiple times by several editors but never responds, just keeps on going. The data points are largely the dates a record was recorded (he generally adds the previous year to which a record was released, even when it was released quite late in the year, which may or may not be true but smacks of presumption to me; most albums by active artists on a major label take a few weeks to a few months to record and a few more weeks to master, press and ship; further, he's doing this to singles, which are generally recorded in anywhere from a few weeks to a day or two) and specific release dates that clearly don't add up to the chart data. Picking a song at random from his most recent edits, I note that he added one date, then changed the year (perhaps a typo), but then changed it to a completely different date. There might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, and it might be the actual date for all I know (this isn't a page I watch or even a song I'm familiar with), but in other cases, he has been incorrect. If "Time After Time" was released somewhere on January 7, 1984, as he claims, then it's surely not the same place where he claims her followup single, "She Bop", was released only a month later, on February 17, 1984; or where he tells us her follow-up to that, "All Through The Night", was released only two months later, in April, all still months prior to when "Time After Time" peaked on the charts in the U.S., in June. This does not correspond to these records' chart histories (my recollection is that "All Through The Night" was released near the end of '84) and is not the way singles were released in a single territory in the 1980s. Another editor has accused him on his talk page of having other accounts as socks. In any event, he's unwilling to note where he's getting these dates from. For my first few years here I made a point of not seeking to have editors blocked unless their edits were in the mode of racist epithets and death threats, but the longer I'm here the more I realize just how much a single user can corrupt data points across the project. Still, I'm not interested in being the police, I'd just like to know who to call on to assess a situation and handle it appropriately. While I'm happy to revert changes on pages I watch, when I find someone making erroneous or suspect changes en masse, I suspect that what's needed here is someone to roll back all this guy's changes, something a couple editors have been doing piecemeal. I stumbled on your page out of curiosity over a different issue, noted your bot-assisted vandalism-fighting cred, and thought I'd see if you could assist. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.Thank you for watching out the usability wiki and restoring the multimedia hub from the vandalism. Much appreciated. You deserve a barnstar.
Regarding a suspected proxyHello, J.delanoy! I reverted a number of edits by user 78.151.132.119. They were also given a "last warning" by User:Ipatrol, which prompted this post on my talk page. I don't know if it is actually possible that someone was in fact using a proxy and making unconstructive edits, so I wonder if you could help me respond...Thanks, Thatguyflint Quick checkHey there J.delanoy. Was wondering if you could take a quick look at User_talk:NuclearWarfare#A_SPI_question. Thank, NW (Talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Russian language, fyiHey you just blocked 91.77.129.245 for linkspam on Russian language. He is back as 91.77.252.41 and spamming as usual. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Barnstar
nom nom nom andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins! Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.
Blocking of 68.193.162.27.I think you blocked it too early. It was only at its third warning. It would have needed to receive one more warning (fourth warning) to qualify for a block, yes? - Zhang He (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
spi/chu?Is it fishing to ask for checkuser against User:Wemmert, whose user page says this account was created in response to "my previous ban"? tedder (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Advertising
It is
|
