User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/August
BlockHi. Can you please review the decision not to block at [1]? I (obviously) think a block is in order, but as soon as I explained why (most recently) my comment was simply deleted (perhaps so others could not see it?). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Martinez trade donethe trade is done, confirmed by CBS sports and MLBtraderumors.com, reported on ESPN as done, reported on MLB Network done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunaja (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC) CUTKDCUTKD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Semi-protecting for a week won't do any good. The IP's were issuing these same "I'm gonna get you" messages many weeks ago. It should be permanent. My opinion is that CUTKD is engaged in some kind of game with somebody, but that's not wikipedia's purpose and threats of violence, even if they're in jest, shouldn't be tolerated when they look serious to somone who's not "in on" that game or whatever it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Memiors Of An Imperfect AngelI am just adding a few imformation on it if you leave it on there i would b thankfull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changstafolife (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC) When yer aboot...86.146.156.226 (talk · contribs) is another in a long line of metal-observer IP trolls re-adding the link after its been removed. I had a chat with Hu12 about it and he said he couldn't blacklist the site just yet because it showed up in almost 1000 pages and he felt that would be too much collateral damage. Several user's have picked up on this and, so far, the number has been chopped down to 675. Once all the mainspace links are removed (leaving nothing but archived Wikipedia/talk pages he can go ahead and blacklist the link. Its a work in progress. If you could take care of that latest IP and rollback any leftover contributions that haven't already been rv'd... that'd be great! Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
87.194.171.224 (talk · contribs) was this mornings metal-O re-adder. I think I got them all. Could you block n check. Its a IP that Prophaniti has had previous access to as he already has a block log (and you're in it :-D ) The Real Libs-speak politely 11:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh look...It appears I have blocked one of your previous acquaintances (again). – B.hotep •talk• 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for thatProtecting my user page an all, appreciate it :-). Jeff M | Talk2Me | BNosey - 02:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
When you're about .. part 27The always troublesome Rock Soldier has deemed himself an expert on singing and vocalist range and he has decided that Youtube is the ultimate verification for his opinion. He has been adding "expert" personal analysis on many pages about vocal range and adding links to music videos to support his claims. The invisible verification for his content and the Youtube links is basically "just listen and you can hear it for yourself". His edits in this area have gone WAY overboard in recent weeks and he needs a sterm mention from a sherriff that this is not the right way to cite anything. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The "MO" IP warriorUser:Prophaniti stepped around the 2 week block on yesterdays IP and used 86.146.156.226 (talk · contribs) to continue his war over at wp:album. He has also revealed himself to have a new account... Catglobal (talk · contribs) so that he can circumvent semi-prots to still edit pages. Which he did... again... bypassing the 2 week block put on his IP of yesterday. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from LakkattoorHello Enigmaman, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Lakkattoor has been removed. It was removed by SpacemanSpiff with the following edit summary '(contest PROD: verifiable village, article was incorrect in saying it was part of another village, it was part of a Panchayat)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with SpacemanSpiff before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) Edit warrior WAY past 3RRUmmm.. I think this fella has more than overstepped his boundaries as far as 3RR is concerned. He was issued a warning last night. Has ignored it and continued his pov push. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Editing Larry Dolan PageEnigmaman, I'd like to edit the Larry Dolan page. I have a reliable internet source and I'll share it with you. Thanks, Shanleye (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely he's earned an indef by nowEither with edits like this or by his userpage itself. A single purpose personal attack account is what he' reduced his content to. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thou swingeth thy hammer with a mighty thwomp! The Real Libs-speak politely 18:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) DYK for The Queen of Hearts (poem)Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) When you're about part XXVIIThis IP 90.199.99.43 (talk · contribs) is A)a genre warrior B) a false info adder C)a copyvio image uploader or D) yet another IP of an old troll Scarian and I used to refer to "ol' 90.X".... the correct answer is.... "all of the above". A troublesome pest he is. Scarian has blocked many a 90.X IP... any chance you could follow that path as well? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The Silver Movement DeleationThis page is credible. I do not understand what the problem is. I have valid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I'm wondering why you want my article deleted? I wrote the article on a entrepreneur near Buffalo, NY. If you google him "Carson Ciggia", you will find his blog along with several news articles. He deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.31.228 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) RE:Blocked IPReplied on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) thanks & curious ...hello Enigmaman - thanks for all your good work, and please excuse this "just making sure" question: you recently blocked 67.58.167.45, and although that appears in that IP's block log, there seems to be no notification of the block on User Talk:67.58.167.45. is that standard or ... ? (i'm the one who reported the IP, which is the only reason i noticed.) thanks again, and swing on. Sssoul (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Hobgoblein is questioning blockJust a heads up for you - User:Hobgoblein is questioning why they were blocked on their talk page. As this wasn't done in the proper templated format, it won't be picked up by the bots. As I am not familiar with the case, I thought I would let you have the honour of explaining (and yes, I do have sloping shoulders... *grin*). Stephen! Coming... 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
RollbackYes, that was inappropriate, and I apologize. It's a result of the interface on my iPhone, which can cause me to activate rollback without realizing it. Just so you know I was aware, you'll see that I've already posted an apology on the talk page of the user I reverted and the user who had to revert me afterwards. Thanks for letting me know, anyway, as I might not have been aware. Mike Christie (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
When searching for BLPs that had lasting serious vandalism, I noticed you gutted the Pauly Shore article and, in the process, removed a lot of verified and relevant information, like many of his appearances and his Razzie award wins. While the awards are negative in nature, they're all true and verifiable. You also removed information on the reception of some of his movies, and some other information. Some of it is understandable as it wasn't sourced or was sourced to blogs, but removing TV and movie appearances seems unnecessary. Lara 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help last time protecting Laird, the vandals are back and deleting the same section of the article. It has happened 3 times in the last day, while thats not too much the IPs look similar to last time and I have a feeling we will continue to have to rv these edits... RP459 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for protecting Laird in August. Now that the semi is expiered vandals in the same IP range have removed the same content twice... I do not know if that satisfies the requirement to re-semi it with its past history, if not let me know I will keep reverting and check back in when it gets worse. RP459 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Braintree rock bandThe rock band Braintree is significant because they are the only indie band to have had two full length albums in the top 200 indie release chart (put out by Nielson Soundscan) at the same time. They have been called "Chicago's hottest rock bands" by WLUP radio, one of Chicago's biggest radio stations. Their CDs have out sold most major label acts in the Chicago regional area. I appologize if I did not make that clear in the article the correct way. I am new to wiki. thank you Quintapus (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Did you get my last email? There seems to be a lot more evidence as to the importance of Braintree than in a lot of other pages about other indie bands. Let me know what I need to do to do it correctly. Quintapus (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Braintree has definately fit this criteria. If you check out this indie chart Braintree is at #172 [3] This web site does not always report the whole chart. But it is the NATIONAL indie release chart.
Don't blame me just for your intentionsI am challenging you to prove it my Sock. Why are you blaiming me for a Sock, when I am not using it. Infact, I have dispute with that so-called Sock. Please, don't blame, you are a nuteral Admin not a counter-part. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)-- Thankyou very much dear. I could just hope such rudeness and revenge from you biased people. Now don't blame that 202.163.91.25, the user who just edited at Marwat and re-edited by you, is also me. I will see, what a shame would be brought to you, when you would be failed in your intentions to take revenge by making an investigagtion by me. I am shocked, how come an Administrator has called me a Sock without any investigation on one of the main Pages. This has ruined my position. Is there no body who could check you Administrtators? --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Requested two pages be semi-protected to prevent IP edits: Hermaphrodite and IntersexualityHi, I have placed two pages on the list because they are both subject to random IP edits inserting Lady Gaga on the basis of rumours about her being a hermaphrodite. There is no WP:RS, and as she has denied this there are WP:BLP issues around this. The rumours began on-line around two months ago, and there were 2-3 insertions every week, but since the posting of videos about this on Youtube and her denials last week, insertions have escalated to daily. It is always IP editors who do this, and it is a pain. Please protect the two pages cited against such insertions indefinitely - and when the rumours die down, or there is some form of verification available, then we can request the protection be lifted. Thanks. 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Pippa BlackHi Enigma I recently asked for the page for Pippa Black to be protected because it was being vandalised. This was declined by you and the reason was that there wasn't enough recent vandalism and I was to resubmit it if the vandalism increased. That's fine, I'm just wondering how recent does the vandalism have to be? For some reason her page seems to come in for a lot of vandalism so I may well have to ask for page protection again at some point but if the vandalism is too old, I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time resubmitting the request? Also, is there anything else I can do to help Wikipedia combat vandalism? At the minute all I'm doing is reverting any vandalism I do see, issuing the user/IP address with the relevant notices, putting the page on my watchlist and then checking the affected pages every day to keep an eye on things. At the minute there's two pages in particular I'm keeping my eye on, Pippa Black's and the Neighbours page. The Neighbours page normally doesn't get vandalised but for some reason it's been vandalised 4 times this week by the same user. I'm hoping that as I've issued this user with their final warning today that this will now stop, however I would like to assist further if I can? Many thanks for taking the time to read this and thanks for your help before with the Pippa Black issue. --5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Enigma Many thanks for the advice there. --5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 94.192.38.247You may need to inform the IP user that he can't remove anything from his IP talk page. He is under the assumption he is. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
My semi-protection requestsHi, I noticed you skipped my requests and would like to know why you skipped them and moved on to the others, If you decline I would like to know the reason why not just have it ignored, because I have to constantly edit those pages because their speculating deaths and fan fic for the following sequal since the film came out its getting tiresome I would appreciate if you looked at it instead of ignore it- thanks! The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'll see if they protected and if not I'll seek a 3rd opinion, but if i dont get a reason I'll re-submitt tomorrow thanks anyway for your response The Movie Master 1 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Another Monday morn and Wikipedia is still here... AKA... When you're aboot part 53.5Just checking in this Monday morn and I see that User:04parrw still refuses to follow consensus and sources that his favourite band is no longer a band. This lone user has gone through many an IP sock trying to re-add his pov (which really = re-adding false info) in to the Queen and Queen discography articles. And has gone past a final warning to do so. A semi-P will stop him from IP socking. But won't stop his account. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
1960s in heavy metal music went off its prot today and our IP troll jumped on it right away and blanked a whole bunch of ref that Bardin had put in to stop the IP from pressing his own pov in the first place. PS... this IP is also the same "metal-observer" IP user... so no good will come from him. 86.153.18.124 (talk · contribs) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Braintree rock bandSo I have left you messages providing you with proper evidence of the rock band Braintree being on a National Chart which fulfills one of Wikis requirements. I have not heard from you at all. If I don't hear from you soon I will assume that you will not contest if I post again. And if I have been doing it wrong, please let me know so that I do not make the same mistake. Quintapus (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Paint Me BlackThanks for helping with the pagemoves/deletions, and for blocking Das Ansehnlisch. It took ten hours to get his mess cleaned up. I can't imagine someone being allowed to run rampant for as long as he did. Radiopathy •talk• 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC) No sooner did I speak than JD554 reverted my edit. I think a little "time out" would be appropriate here. Radiopathy •talk• 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
BLP: KundraEnigma: Per NPOV the controversial edition by SusanLesch should be excluded from the page during the lockout. Please revert back to rev. no. 308597795 on BLP: Kundra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorTwo (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Enigma: Per US-Law Kundra was not "convicted" as alleged. Definition (Conviction): The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (PBJ- Community service is not conviction). Please make the changes as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.128.239 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: WP:RFPPXymmax and I just processed a dozen requests [5]. If folks like I can remember to check RFPP a little more often, hopefully that will make it a little easier on you. Thanks again for doing the drudgery protection work that few others wanted to tackle! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I replied to a comment of yours there, though by the time you get this, you may have to check at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive. NW (Talk) 22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) SemiprotectionI noticed that you semiprotected the Lockerbie bomber's page. I have only little experience with Wikipedia, but wondered whether such an action is meaningful and contributes to the well-being of Wikipedia. The reason given was "excessive vandalism", so I studied the history to find the vandalism. One change was labeled "vandalism" where in reality it was an attempted correction, a grammatical misunderstanding (someone changed "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain as a dying man" into "The Lockerbie bomber flew out of Britain carrying a dying man", clearly interpreting this "bomber" as the airplane instead of the man) and I noticed five IPs actually engaging in vandalism (67.193.163.252, 208.58.54.28, 24.188.28.254, 71.240.26.75, 75.168.199.213), but in all cases the vandalism was reverted almost immediately. That is the advantage of a current event that interests people: there are more readers, so vandalism is corrected quickly. All in all, it seems to me that semiprotecting a page like this under these circumstances, where nothing unusual happens is counterproductive. It prevents more than half of the visitors in correcting some detail or adding new developments, so does more harm than good. I think. (In fact there are important new developments that are not covered, possibly because people are prevented in adding them.) 213.84.53.62 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC) I'm just looking for a little advice about this page. This is a page for one of the Neighbours characters and the other day someone edited it saying that her mother was rumoured to be returning to the soap. There was no reference supplied so I googled this rumour and could find no evidence of it being true so assumed it was vandalism and took it out putting in the notes that if it is true then to resubmit quoting a referenced source. I looked again today and have found someone has resubmitted it but no source, again cannot find any evidence of this being true but this time have added the citation template to the page instead of deleting the rumour. What I was going to do is give it a day or two for a refence to be submitted, if nothing is submitted I was going to delete the rumour and explain in notes that citation was asked for and none submitted so that is why it's been deleted. I'm just wondering, is this the best way to handle this? --5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Lady Gaga is backI guess the week's protection on Hermaphrodite is over, because Lady Gaga is back via IP editing. Any chance of putting the protection back? Mish (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) When you return to Wiki-online-nessCould you pay attention to this post and see if you have an opinion/path for me. Thanks! Have a nice day! Libs. 142.167.164.145 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) |