No edit summary |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) Stalking |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
: The user has never been blocked; the fact that it's a different IP number almost every time they show up has prevented blocking from being a viable solution. And we're also not allowed to put permanent blocks on dynamic IP numbers anyway; we can at most put a 24-hour or 48-hour block. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
: The user has never been blocked; the fact that it's a different IP number almost every time they show up has prevented blocking from being a viable solution. And we're also not allowed to put permanent blocks on dynamic IP numbers anyway; we can at most put a 24-hour or 48-hour block. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Stalking == |
|||
Quit following me around; quit looking for any opportunity to support someone who opposes me no matter how bad an editor it is; and quit e-mailing people asking them to post comments against me. Your support for someone who reverted five times in 50 minutes is astonishing, and for you to chastise any admin for reverting takes the biscuit given you're one of the worst offenders. I'm serious, CJC. I don't want to see you following me around any more. If you continue, I'll begin dispute resolution. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:32, 15 January 2007
- See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 1 for 2004 correspondence.
- See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 2 for 2005 correspondence.
- See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 3 for 2006 correspondence.
Mark Lemire
I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Socialist Party of British Columbia
I don't see your fingerprints on this article, which concerns me. They should be there. I have been trying to clean this dong's breakfast up. Your contributions would help improve this and give me more confidence in the validity of the article. Happy new year. Ground Zero | t 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the Kouba article. Incidently, penny for your thoughts regarding the current saga concerning the Marc Lemire article? AnnieHall 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Isarig
Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just by the way, you put the sprotect notice on the page, but then didn't actually sprotect it...so our anon friend got another one in. Bearcat 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dion
You probably won't be surprised to know that I'm already aware of the issue. And I do share your concerns. I was actually about to say something a day or two ago but didn't because GD posted that a tag was better than a removal, even if it was problematic. I'm not really familiar with WP policies in that regard so I just let it go, waiting for Eric to post some sort of defence. And like I said before, I hate to step in the middle of your disputes with GD. =) --JGGardiner 08:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Church/Peter Murphy
Sorry--didn't mean to assume a lack of knowledge of surrealism. I never caught a reference to Peter Murphy in the song, but if there is a history there (i.e. animosity between Kilbey and Murphy), then maybe it fits. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and after thinking about it, it really doesn't hurt to be on the list. Freshacconci 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages
When you want to start a new conversation on a talk page or a page like the Village Pump, please use the + tab rather than simply editing the last section. I was thinking that you were replying to a post I made. Using the + tab will create less confusion. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael Prue
While I agree with you, I just did a lookup on the anon's IP number, and guess where it resolves to? APNIC. Which means, in a nutshell, that it's most likely the same person as our beloved DiNovo vandal (especially since the same person has also made edits to Sylvia Watson), and that it's very unlikely that any amount of discussion or reversion is going to make them settle for any version of the article that isn't theirs. I honestly don't know what the best way is to handle this, but we know from experience that editblocks and reversions aren't going to work.
I'd suggest maybe going back to your more thorough wording, but say that the incident "was characterized as a smear campaign" if it can be externally attributed to a viable source. Bearcat 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The user has never been blocked; the fact that it's a different IP number almost every time they show up has prevented blocking from being a viable solution. And we're also not allowed to put permanent blocks on dynamic IP numbers anyway; we can at most put a 24-hour or 48-hour block. Bearcat 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Stalking
Quit following me around; quit looking for any opportunity to support someone who opposes me no matter how bad an editor it is; and quit e-mailing people asking them to post comments against me. Your support for someone who reverted five times in 50 minutes is astonishing, and for you to chastise any admin for reverting takes the biscuit given you're one of the worst offenders. I'm serious, CJC. I don't want to see you following me around any more. If you continue, I'll begin dispute resolution. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)