User talk:Curps/archive21

About "Louisville, Whore"

I worked hard on that joke page in reaction to the Simpsons episode. I don't like what you did, it was undignified, and I expect an apology. Deleting my work if it's on userspace-not acceptable. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored it. The only reason I went and deleted it was because I couldn't remember the right page to nominate non-article-space pages for deletion (not AfD). That was cutting a few corners, sorry about that, it shouldn't have been done that way. I still don't think it fits, as per the reasons given (WP:NOT webspace), but I'll leave it alone. -- Curps 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanx and it's OK CoolKatt number 99999 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to say, wonderful job catching the offensive usernames today around the time I'm posting this. I was welcoming people and noticed how you did a great job at catching them. Just wanted to let you know. Bravo!--ViolinGirl^♪ 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Go see what that pooop vandal has done at Wikispecies!

United States still missing

Thank you for reverting all of that pagemove vandalism. During this restoration, the article United States appears to have been deleted. Could you please restore it? Thanks. NatusRoma 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Curps, I've restored the talk page, but it keeps giving me errors when I try and restore the article. What should we do? -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about raising a ruckus

I raised a bit if a ruckus just now about the United States article. Hope it doesn't cause any further problems, but with such a notable article, I felt it was wiser to shoot first and ask questions later. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why the restore lags so long, or even who deleted it. Database glitch? -- Curps 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for blanking vandalism on my talk page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

checkuser and possible followup

Note recent charming pagemove vandalism twice in quick succession:

• BillRoller (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Mustanglover (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

In one of his earlier edits, BillRoller mentions he is posting to Wikipedia from work: [1]

Can you do a checkuser to see if these two users are the same person (or same workplace), and possibly undertake followup as you see fit. -- Curps 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly add:

• Maricon (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

who may the the same or just a follow-on copycat. -- Curps 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these users are the same person. Mustanglover used two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities, which in my experience means that they're using compromised hosting servers. I have blocked both addresses, 72.22.69.51 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Brithackemack (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). The other two users are clearly distinct both from Mustanglover and from each other. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Another detail

Sorry to bug you again, but I noticed:

• Mustanglover69 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created 02:42, 14 December 2005 [2]
• Mustanglover (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created 02:38, 14 December 2005 [3]

Mustanglover69 was blocked almost immediately as a vandal, while Mustanglover was a sleeper that waited until it could do pagemove vandalism.

Today we had:

• WillemJokerr (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created 01:12, 16 December 2005 [4]
• WillemJoker (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) created 01:06, 16 December 2005 [5]

WillemJokerr was blocked almost immediately as a George W. Bush anti-Jimbo vandal, WillemJoker hasn't done anything yet, as I write this.

A similar situation? Accounts created minutes apart, the second account is an immediate vandal, while the first account could be a sleeper, or it could be an innocent user whose name the vandal imitated, perhaps with an aim to get us to start preemptively blocking innocent users.

So does checkuser provide any enlightenment here? How about Mustanglover/Mustanglover69, now known to both be vandals, undoubtedly related, but does checkuser tell us this? -- Curps 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MustangLover69 (who shows no edits, although I suppose they may have been deleted; there is currently no way for me to get IP information on edits which have been deleted), was using an SBC PPPoX pool address (68.122.119.83), which basically means we know nothing about him. I suspect that they're the same person, and that the SBC PPPoX pool address is the address of a compromised machine as well, but it's on dialup or some other sort of connection that will move from time to time so we can't block it the way we can block the members of their botnet that are on static IPs.

WillemJokerr is also using a SBC PPPoX pool address (68.124.190.85). I think both of these are in the same general geographic area, so they're likely the same endpoint. This IP is also responsible for Jswannar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who I have now blocked) and This will help us (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (who has already been blocked). We're obviously going to have to keep an eye on these SBC PPPoX pool blocks for a while.

WillemJoker was created from 144.132.247.110, which belongs to Telstra. There is one other edit from this IP, made anonymously, which appears to be legitimate. At this point I don't know if there's a connection. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Uninvestigated allegations of spoofing

You blocked my username without making any effort to discover if I might have a reason for registering a similar-appearing user name to continue editing an article I had previously contributed to. I registered the similar appearing name for consistency sake after I failed to recall my password for the original user name. Your unfounded allegation and uninquisitive tone of hostility does not seem consistent with a genuine search for encyclopedic information, but does convey a sense of impatience, suspicion and lack of cooperation.

You would do well to observe in good faith the consistent tone and narrow interest of the two visually similar user names, to observe the constructive articulate nature of each user name's contribution, to note the lack of destructive edits by either user name, to consider difficulties encountered by harried volunteer contributors to an opensource project then to post an inquiry on the user's talk pages and wait an appropriate time before making dark allegations that a contributor is an impostor or is spoofing.

Now posting as Riebold, I have also posted as Rybold and as RyboId. I expect you can avoid reinforcing your error by ceasing any hostility or allegation toward me now using a third username, and I request that you reverse your capricious indefinate block so I can avoid stirring further confusion by using yet another handle. Riebold 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WBOW

Hey, could you slap a WBOW template on User:Salmonizatios? I'm not an admin, so I don't think I should. Thanks, Melchoir 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delayed thank you

You probably do so many such good deeds one is nothing but I just noticed you reverted some vandalism of my user page a month ago. Thanks muchly. Jellypuzzle 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CLW/User:CLVV

Hi Curps! Thanks for acting so quickly and efficiently with regard to the above accounts! It was in fact me who set up CLVV to stop anyone else from setting up an account to impersonate me - I'd seen it happen with other users, and this was the only possible combination of characters that I could think of that anyone could use. But it's reassuring to see that even if it had been an imposter setting up that account they would have been immediatlely blocked before they could do any harm. I hope this didn't cause you too much unnecessary work and hassle. Thanks again. CLW 13:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

??

Is User:XXxWiLlYwHeElSxXx the same as the other "on wheels" users you blocked just a few minutes ago?--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that one. Same person or copycat, it doesn't really matter. -- Curps 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for cleaning up the vandalism to my user page. Much appreciated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox 2 edit-warring

User:Locke Cole also reverted a bunch of albums to Template:Albuminfobox 2. Only the ones that User:Monicasdude hand-reverted from User:BGC's spree though, not the ones you rollbacked. I'm not confident enough to edit-war with that user over it. Opinion? Jkelly 02:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't have an opinion, I have no involvement in album article content. I only acted to level the playing field by undoing what BGC appeared to have done improperly (based on his last comment on your talk page). Hopefully things can be sorted out in the future without such disruption. -- Curps 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong anyway. User:Locke Cole's editing was only to put in Album infobox 2, and did not revert all the way back through months. My mistake, and while I don't agree with the edit, it isn't the same kind of disruption. Jkelly 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85 sockpuppets

I noticed you going through and blocking some sock puppets of User:Mcfly85 like User:Barkman34 and User:Capnoh - with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used abusively). Well, hate to say that you missed some:

• User:4benson3
• User:Ebrockline
• User:Jimcrocela
• User:Pwner
• User:Tobiasafi

I think thats all of them, thanks for helping. — Moe ε 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

4benson3: I did block this one

Ebrockline: I did block this one

Jimcrocela: No such user, I blocked Jimcroce1a

Pwner: Not listed by Fred Bauder (but I have now blocked anyway as per username policy ("pwn") and blanking vandalism of your userpage and the reasonable likelihood that it is indeed a sockpuppet in conjunction with the other things)

Tobiasafi: No such user, I blocked Tobiasfi

-- Curps 06:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the mix-ups! And if I know the IP addresses of a sockpuppeteer, do those count as sockpuppets? — Moe ε 15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

A big WikiThanks for all the work you've been doing reverting the album templates recently! - Wezzo 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please let us be truly fair

I never cut and paste except to restore text that people are deleting for no good reason. Whatever I post is true and carefully documented. Please, we need to have a fair picture, so please stop deleting important truths which are backed by references that anyone can check. Let us please have a balanced view. I Speak Only Truth 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Move vandal block bot

Can you modify your bot to email me when it blocks someone for page move vandalism? I'm finding that virtually all of these incidents are coming out of compromised web hosts, and a checkuser often identifies at least one additional sleeper account. Prompt investigation and decisive action after such blocks may help to reduce our exposure. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction (history)

Please don't use rollback to revert non-vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly are you messing with that page? When the database glitch is fixed, that will be the live Wikipedia:Introduction page once again. Your edit is precisely the kind that would be reverted under normal circumstances. -- Curps 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it should not be rolled back as vandalism, as it is not. It should probably not be reverted either, as there is nothing wrong with profanity. --SPUI (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you put profanity in sandbox-like locations where other users will see it, it's rollbackable and no manual edit or edit summary or other justification is needed. -- Curps 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:My another account

14 December 2005 Curps blocked "User:My another account" with an expiry time of indefinite (please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page)

Which page is this page? And what kind of verification is necessary?

It's not like the name I chose is inflammatory or offending or somesuch. --194.226.235.251 13:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked it. "This page" is the page you get when a blocked account tries to edit a page, it has various information on it. -- Curps 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for your bot

Hi. Would you please be able to run your bot through W.H. Dall? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

your block summaries

I know that this has been mentioned before, but could you please be more descriptive in some of your block summaries? I noticed that you're still using "user..." in your summaries, and those can be confusing, especially to new users. A summary like "inappropriate username" or "username implies vandal account" would be fine. --Ixfd64 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.199. (User:Mike Nobody),

My IP address is 205.188.116.199. Please include this address, along with your username (User:Mike Nobody), in any queries you make. My ISP is AOL and was in the middle of something. I was mistakenly blocked with "IMaRocketMan". Please unblock.

• yeah, what he said, it looks like 90% of AOL's servers are currently serving out 24 hour autoblocks, it's getting very annoying--152.163.101.11 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Do you know if there are anyway to stop them. I'm severly getting infected by the autoblocks, most of them are AOL IPs in which I use. #70913 Is one of them that can't let me edit some pages and need it unblocked. And do you know how to avoid them? Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I get one every three seconds, it's almost unbearable--152.163.101.11 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

When a registered username is blocked by an admin, that admin has no way of knowing whether that user was on AOL or not. IP address information on registered users simply isn't provided to us, for privacy reasons. Admins also have no way of turning off autoblocking: when a registered username is blocked, autoblocks always happen (and vandals can probably figure out how to use this to do a denial-of-service attack on AOL users). Also, there's no way to give legitimate registered users immunity from being autoblocked.

There's not much I can say, except complain to the developers. The Mediawiki software has glaring deficiencies and they're not getting fixed very quickly. Complain to AOL too, for their open proxy implementation which lumps vandals and good users together and makes it impossible for Wikipedia to distinguish them. AOL is frankly a less-than-ideal platform for editing Wikipedia.

As things currently stand with both Mediawiki and AOL, there's no way to prevent such a situation from occurring and recurring. As I mentioned above, I have no way of even knowing which autoblocks are AOL autoblocks, and there's not much that can be done about it anyway. -- Curps 05:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

• Hi--Colin Ostrich 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™

I think you may have accidentally erased a number of comments on that last edit you nade to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™... I reverted it and mislabeled the edit as a vandalism revision. Sorry about that. --jackohare 05:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• On a related note, thanks for your post on Wikimeister's talk page (which s/he has since deleted, hiding the evidence), which alerted me to what s/he was doing. I'm almost certain s/he and Inspectorpanther are the same person - both access the Internet from RCN through routers on the Lower East Side of Manhatten - and may even be the same person as or someone very close to User:Lerner, the author of the article and a founding partner in this company. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Matt is teh pwn

Why was this user blocked? There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. --SPUI (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be mocking someone named Matt, but fair enough, it may be a stretch. I see someone has already unblocked it. -- Curps 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Curps. I think you accidentally removed some legitimate votes during this edit [6] Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's a little too easy for this to happen, the Mediawiki software should do a better job to signal it. -- Curps 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. If you are trying to clean up the page please go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, actually that's not what happened at all. Anyway, it's restored now. -- Curps 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why

Why are you reverting honest edits?

I am trying to learn the ropes here and contribute to the Wikipedia, you are ignoring and reverting all of my edits in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If I am doing something wrong, LET ME KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE IT RIGHT, do NOT revert me blindly or I will report you to Mr. Wales for discipline.

What is wrong with my edits?

You vandalized Jimmy Wales and your earlier talk page comments could be interpreted as harassment. I reverted them. Given that track record, your edits to the template seem to be designed to encourage or suggest vandalism, and are hardly helpful. I took your edits to be vandalism and reverted accordingly. If they're not, at least be aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. -- Curps 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I "vandalized" Jimmy Wales, it was my first damn edit and I was figuring out the system. I was told to stop and so I asked for clarifications. I did *not* harass, that was you doing the harassment. My edits to the template suggest vandalism is possible, which, hey oh my goodness, it is. What is the purpose of the template if not to warn people vandalism is likely? As it is the template isn't helpful. My clairificaitons are. Your harassment of me and my editing is not, and is in direct violation of Wikipedia standards.

I doubt very much that your vandalism to Jimmy Wales was the first edit you ever made on Wikipedia (you, not the anon IP address). I've seen that "utter failure" edit before. -- Curps 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User: Jake Remingto.n

Hi, the user User:Jake Remingto.n sounds like the many vandals that you had blocked. --Hurricane111 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody looooves you

Kappa recently did you the favor of speedying CURPS BOT IS ANAL SEX WITH TATOR TOTS (which was created by newbie AHOBOT). BD2412 T 04:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

vandlaism

noticed you reverted vandalsim on my user page, many thanks :-) Benon 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking

Per a request to the mailing list, I've unblocked 202.37.96.11 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (resolves to gatekeeper.tate.co.nz). It may well be a proxy, but I'm not sure how to determine if it's an open one or not - it doesn't look like it - and all previous edits looked decent.

Feel free to reblock if you feel it's needed, but if you do re-block it'd probably be appreciated if you could drop that chap an email explaining why. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert De Niro

Hi, I notice you have spotted this persistant AOL vandal on De Niro's article, he is attacking other articles on Italian Americans, including Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Danny DeVito, Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese and possibly others by persistantly adding the name Marc Tufano in various ways to these articles. It seems that some people are of the impression that it is not worth blocking AOL ips as they are unlikely to be used by the same person again, but, if you look back at the history of De Niro you can see the attacks have been coming from the same ip since December 6th so in my opinion it is definitely justified to block AOL ips. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks Arniep 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, so are you saying every time this same person accesses a certain page they use a different ip, how does that work say if an ip they used for a certain page before is used by another user at exactly the same time? Arniep 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, so basically everyone in AOL who accesses a certain page will have the same ip, even if they access it at the same time? Also is one ip assigned to a page forever? Arniep 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another request for your bot

This one is for the Roma people page. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please? ---Khoikhoi 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, something else came up and I forgot about this. It's done now. -- Curps 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sorry for being impatient. --Khoikhoi 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia revert

I was extremely disappointed to find the "evaluation" section of Wikipedia completely gone and only represented by "critisism" in the "See also" subsection. Undoubtedly, I acted hastily. Cheers. WAS 4.250 04:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, I bet you'll want to comment! Dan100 (Talk) 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Blockinblox

Dedicated to user:Curps for his hard work at keeping vandals out. By Antonio Santa Claus Martin, December 21, 2005

Hola Curps: Como estas? I was contacted by a certain user:Blockinblox who wants to find out why you blocked him. As an administrator, this intrigues me too, particularly because we can reinstate or deny reinstallment to users. I'd be glad to help him if it was a mistake, but if there is enough reason for him not to reinstated then we need to stick by our principles.

Also, looking at your talk page, you are a hard security guard here. You shall be rewarded.

Feliz Christmas, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio los Bloods, Creeps and Curps (hehe, sounds cool ah?) Martin

See below. -- Curps 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you block me???

Hi, this is Blockinblox. I'm using a different computer now. Why did you block me with expiry of "infinite" from the English wikipedia before I even got a chance to make one edit?? I haven't done anything wrong, and I have never been blocked from any wiki ever before. For "reason" you put:

"please contact an administrator for verification purposes"...

What exactly am I supposed to verify please? I would very much like to be unblocked ASAP, as I haven't done anything wrong. Thank you. Please respond at User_talk:Blockinblox. Thanks again. User:Blockinblox

Probably it was an overreaction. I see another administrator has already unblocked. -- Curps 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mutant powers

Where did you obtain your supernatural abilities? I have not slept much this past day, and you've been around the whole time. Thank you for stepping in and lending a hand with the UCF article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I have to tell you, one of my favorite activities as of late around here is watching you shut down that pathetic loser who doesn't seem to have anything better to do on the internet than create user names raging about how horrible you are. Keep up the good work. You know you're doing right when you get under their skin.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lucky. He sent me an e-mail. As an adminitrator I feel my duty to look at these cases in a neutral way. Well, now I see what kind of person this guy is. If he keeps making fuss about it, imagine what it would be like iof we let him back! Antonio Worried about Locos outthere Martin 09:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my page

Thank you for whacking the vandal on my user page; Have another RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar Thanks a million!!  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco & bot

Hi - User:SEWilco has complained about being indefinetly blocked on his talk page [7]. The only mention of him I see on [8] is your block of #72382 as recently used by "RefBot". I find no other note on that page nor any block notice on his talk or on the bot talk. Am I missing something? Please clarify. Vsmith 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A new user "RefBot" edited User:SEWilcoBot to redirect to its own user page. I didn't see a signature by SEWilco on the User:RefBot page to confirm that it was his account, so I blocked RefBot as a precautionary measure. The SEWilco and SEWilcoBot accounts weren't blocked. Hmmm, I thought SEWilco was an admin and would be able to unblock it himself. I've unblocked the autoblock now, in any case. -- Curps 19:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IP Blocking

Is there any way to avoid IP blocking? Say, not block registered users unless they (specifically) are vandals, or something. I'm just trying to avoid the hassle I just went through, since I'm most definitely not a vandal. - ElAmericano | talk 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruno

I don't often second-guess you (and I'll defer to your judgment) but I would have left Category:Astrologers in place for Giordano Bruno. From what I remember reading of his works (30-odd years ago) he was a pretty serious astrologer. See for example [9], and apparently Elisabetta Tarantino (University of Wales at Aberystwyth) did a paper in 2000 on "Bruno and Astrology" [10]. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you wish to reapply the category go ahead. I tend to believe in avoiding category clutter, in that a person should be added to a category only if their "claim to fame" is in that category. So if a person would not be encyclopedic solely based on their activity in category X (even if it was a lifelong passionate interest or even profession of theirs), then they shouldn't be added to that category.

For example, William Herschel was an accomplished musician and composer and music teacher and bandleader, and made his living in the field of music (until he discovered Uranus and became famous and the king paid him a salary to devote himself to astronomy). However, his musical compositions are forgotten today; his claim to fame is astronomy. Accordingly, we don't classify him under the musicians or composers category.

-- Curps 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that people who care about astrology (I'm not one of them) tend to consider Bruno important as an astrologer. Tell you what: let's leave it off for now, but if someone adds it again, let's leave it and see if someone else objects. Deal? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

:)

Thanks for the revert. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page.

"Josh Davis"

Yeah, it could have been an impostor; but my personal experience leads me to believe that most kids are dumb enough to use their real names here ... they don't realize it can come back to them. Daniel Case 05:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for 'verting my page. Search4Lancer 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

(Sigh) thanks

Thanks for fixing the candidate template's typo, saving me from further embarassment. Perils of non-native English, I guess. --Kizor 07:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam removal

Thanks for doing it. Banes 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but I decided to keep it. (Record of why I blocked him...) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tufano

He's back again [11] maybe we should start documenting these and email it to AOL abuse? Arniep 18:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

have a look at this history [12]. Arniep 18:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. This case appears to be different than the others (despite my hasty edit summary comment there). -- Curps 21:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

the supposed episode he appeared in doesn't google, if it existed I can't think why imdb would have missed it. Arniep 21:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could ask Trampikey (talk · contribs). He appears to be a longstanding EastEnders-related contributor, and has not added back Tufano information to the Reg Cox article. I don't think he's related to the vandal. The episode appears to date back from 1985, and Google hits are less favorable to events from before the modern Internet era. -- Curps 21:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He is a serial harrasser of people in the media and well known to the police. If you have to block that AOL IP, then do it.

My talk page?

Is there some story why you reverted a mesage on my talk page? Dominick ^(TALK) 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This user 172.159.25.124 (talk · contribs) spammed several dozen user talk pages with the same message (click on the "contributions" link) and then did it again on another IP address. In fact it appears this was done using a bot. I globally reverted. -- Curps 21:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalizer on article Evangeline Lilly

Did you ban User:Evangeline Lilly (See also the violator's talk page) just due to impersonation on a celebrity? Just curious. From my point-of-view impersonating a celebrity is a bannable offense. You should ban said user as soon as you can since impersonation is a serious violation IMO. — Dark Insanity 05:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please reply on my Talk Page. Thanks.

There was vandalism. -- Curps 05:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only vandalism, but an act of impersonation as well. I feel that impersonation should also be deemed as a bannable offense, don't you think? — Dark Insanity 05:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. It's all in one package the vandal is emitting.

Wikipedia:Username policy strongly discourages it. -- Curps 05:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this to be Wikipedia is Communism rather than the Girls Aloud/Obesity and John Moores vandal (who appears to have given up, I am told! Well, the John Moores one anyway) --Sunfazer 05:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly I never cared much for vandal taxonomy. Much of it is all related. No point letting the vandal know everything we know. -- Curps 06:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that pretty much closes the conversation. Never knew that the vandalizer's user account was a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. — Dark Insanity 17:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar Looking Names

I actually created the extra names (in lowercase) to avoid impersonation to begin with. Since I travel a lot, I'm not affected by blocks too much. Because You blocked those names, though, I still have to be careful to capitolize My last name otherwise I'll leave a Blocked IP in My wake. It's good to create the extra names Yourself to avoid someone else claiming those names. -- Eddie 06:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we do block impostors, and like you mention, users sometimes create their own doppelganger accounts to prevent any impostors. In general last names are capitalized, so hopefully using the main account isn't too much of an inconvenience? I'll remove the autoblock on the IP. -- Curps 07:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This made me laugh

• 22:38, December 24, 2005 Curps unblocked User:DrKinsey (admitted to creating the impostor User:Jimbo Wa1es account, brazenly insisting that it's a perfectly legitimate account for him to use, but it's Christmas and he hasn't done anything wrong under the DrKinsey sock... yet, anyway)

I'd re-block him for impersonating the famous sexologist. Hanukkah is tomorrow you know. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:26, Dec. 25, 2005

Okay

If you must remove it and it's been covered elsewhere then you have my blessing to remove it, and a big thank you for justifying the reason to me. Chooserr 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gregg02

Hi, pal. Hope you're having a great Christmas. Question: I think I just blocked an unauthorized bot operating under the user name of Gregg02. HUGE amounts of rapid-fire articles related to the TV show, "Angel." I suspect they're copyvios being added via a bot, but I can't find the source. Put a fifteen-minute block on the account in hopes of getting answers, but the guy has tried to log back on anonymously. No response. Is there a "magic rollback key" to wip out his copyvios in one swoop or are these going to have to be deleted one at a time? Thanks for all you do. You're really one of this site's indispensible assets. - Lucky 6.9 06:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the green vandalism on my user page. Nolamgm 17:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Imposter block

Thanks for taking care of [removed] for me. I wasn't sure what the protocol was on these things, so I left the guy alone, but you can bet my next move was going to be to request someone else block him. Thanks again! -- Amcaja 20:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization / UNESCO

Please comment on the Talk page and/or see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions before moving this page to its acronym. Thank you! Omnibus 21:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)