Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h (talk | contribs) |
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
I listed the former of the above users at [[WP:UAA]] earlier today, to which you responded and the listing has now been removed with no further action being taken. Please note that the name change from EllipseUK to JoeEUK took place in October 2010, however EllipseUK created the spam article [[Ellipse insurance]] only today. I don't know if it is normal to block the old name in the case of a username change, however in this case I feel it should be blocked because it goes against Wikipedia's policies and is still being used to create spam. -- [[User:Roleplayer|'''<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#006400">role</span>''']][[User talk:Roleplayer|'''''<sup><em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player</em></sup>''''']] 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
I listed the former of the above users at [[WP:UAA]] earlier today, to which you responded and the listing has now been removed with no further action being taken. Please note that the name change from EllipseUK to JoeEUK took place in October 2010, however EllipseUK created the spam article [[Ellipse insurance]] only today. I don't know if it is normal to block the old name in the case of a username change, however in this case I feel it should be blocked because it goes against Wikipedia's policies and is still being used to create spam. -- [[User:Roleplayer|'''<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#006400">role</span>''']][[User talk:Roleplayer|'''''<sup><em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player</em></sup>''''']] 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:It was used to create spam four months ago. There's no point blocking it now and I didn't remove it from UAA, so whomever did obviously agrees with me. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 6 January 2011
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Super late reply
[1] I remember the vandal IP address that you blocked and I do recall you commenting on it. I felt like replying but I misplaced it...and now that I found it months later and it might be outdated, I find it necessary to reply, just so you know. NHRHS2010 | Happy Holidays! 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that was nearly five months ago! How on earth did you find that again? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Likely looking deeply through my contributions and using advanced search. NHRHS2010 | Happy Holidays! 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
AWB request
Hello HJ! I have an AWB request here. However, the administrator who handled the request is hesitant to grant me AWB privileges. HJ, I will not be angry if I don't get AWB privileges, but it would be nice to know whether you think I'm mature enough to handle this tool properly. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 14:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you want to do with it? If you have a few tasks that you want to do or backlogs you want to help with or something, I don't see any compelling reason no to grant it, but make sure you're familiar with al the rules—for example, you shouldn't make just cosmetic changes or changes that have no effect on the output and you shouldn't edit ridiculously quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the quick help. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. Just make sure you check with User:GorillaWarfare before moving it back to mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did leave him/her a courtesy note, but didn't check before moving it. It appears to be a well-established, long-standing religious charity in the US with plenty of sources, and I can't spend time discussing the why's of deletion with a notable organization. If there had been any question of notability or problems with the article, I would have handled it otherwise, but as a straight A7 I can't imagine that GorillaWarfare will take issue with the restoration. Again, thanks for the help. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism only account
I'm not sure I explained that all of User:Quimbc's actions were vandalism. Not sure how many warnings are needed to block a vandalism-only account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- At the time I declined the AIV report, their talk page was still a red link. Personally, I think four warnings is three chances too many, but generally they have to have had at least one serious warning (level 3 or 4) and have vandalised after that to be blocked. I make exceptions for really gross BLP violations, attack pages and similar, but generally, I'd give a level one, then a level 4 if they keep it up, then block them (or report to AIV in the case of a non-admin). They have now been warned it seems, but they haven't edited since then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding King of the Hill edit
Hi, you removed my question without you answering. I figure this was since the question was not at the bottom of your page. I do understand that this is 4 months after the audit reverted being placed, but I figured I would still ask my question.
This is about a revert in regards to the "Bobby Hill" (King of the Hill) edit - Bobby's nickname edit that I placed. It has been removed and I am trying to find out as to why. The nickname is a valuable/constructive information which was directly stated in the "Torch Song Hillogy" episode during Season 6 of the show (so therefore it is correct/real information). If we are going to post the character's middle name, we might as well include the nickname too. If nicknames are not allowed in articles, we might as well remove "Jack" and/or "JFK" from John F. Kennedy's page since that was his nickname as well.
- robohoe (talk) 12:57,05 January 2011 (UTC)
- Articles on people (real or fictional) generally have their full name and, if that's not the name they're commonly known by, the nickname they're most commonly known by, in the lead section. Other nicknames might have their pace in the body of the article, but you should raise it on the talk page to sort out where it belongs. Sorry if your message disappeared before I got it last time—a bot archives everything on this page once it's 36 hours old. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring--out of scope
[[:File:Scopelogo.jpg|thumb|right|130px|Are you really out of scope?]] In regards to this comment: HJ, thanks. I had already tried my luck at ANI, but there were few takers--who wants to stick their nose in this mess? In the meantime, Knowitall is temporarily blocked for socking--but how do I keep the article clean? I have already put way too much time and energy in it... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, sorry 'bout the unfair use... Drmies (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah it seems you've been on something of a wild goose chase. I've indef'd him for edit warring, socking and being an SPA, since it doesn;t seem they have any intention of doing anything useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. That goose maybe wasn't so wild after all, after it turned out that the two wild geese were one and the same. I saw that the editor tried to make an unblock request but formatted in an improper manner (I think?). I left a note there for the next administrator who considers it (in which, I see now, I'm pretty much making the same case as you are). Now, it seems that the article is in calmer waters. I will keep my eye on it (on a goth band--sheesh!) to see if any suspicious IP edits start happening, in which case--you know what I'm going to say--I might ask for semi-protection. HJ, thanks: I think it's a good block. I hate indef-blocks, but sometimes they are necessary. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Knowitall seems to be using their talk page to either make suggestions or simply say that the article is wrong. I don't know if they want to be helpful or if they want to edit by proxy--the latest edit consists of information that was removed from the article because most of it was unverified; it became one single referenced item in the discography. Anyway, is it appropriate use of the talk page for a blocked user? I'm asking also because it turns that talk page into something of a mess. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. That goose maybe wasn't so wild after all, after it turned out that the two wild geese were one and the same. I saw that the editor tried to make an unblock request but formatted in an improper manner (I think?). I left a note there for the next administrator who considers it (in which, I see now, I'm pretty much making the same case as you are). Now, it seems that the article is in calmer waters. I will keep my eye on it (on a goth band--sheesh!) to see if any suspicious IP edits start happening, in which case--you know what I'm going to say--I might ask for semi-protection. HJ, thanks: I think it's a good block. I hate indef-blocks, but sometimes they are necessary. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah it seems you've been on something of a wild goose chase. I've indef'd him for edit warring, socking and being an SPA, since it doesn;t seem they have any intention of doing anything useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted prod on Axis of Eve
Just wanted to let you know that I undeleted Axis of Eve, which you'd previously deleted as a prod, since the deletion was contested. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that was ages ago. No wonder the name didn't ring a bell. Thanks for the note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for lifting the autoblock. I'm on the only school Computer with Mozilla Firefox and I need it for the javascript tools I use, and it's just my luck that someone would have vandalized with this computer.-- Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The autoblock is great, but it can be a pain when it causes collateral damage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi HJ, I just noticed a pagemove that El Muneco had done of an article that had a fair use image, where he had forgotten to update the rationale. I was going to remind him to check for that when doing pagemoves, but his talkpage suggested talking to you first. Anyway, it's no big deal, just a gentle reminder, but here I am anyway. So, er, HJ, will you ask El Muñeco if he would like to be careful for those? (I feel so 14 again.) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- asks innocently* What did I do now? Diego Grez (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I listed the former of the above users at WP:UAA earlier today, to which you responded and the listing has now been removed with no further action being taken. Please note that the name change from EllipseUK to JoeEUK took place in October 2010, however EllipseUK created the spam article Ellipse insurance only today. I don't know if it is normal to block the old name in the case of a username change, however in this case I feel it should be blocked because it goes against Wikipedia's policies and is still being used to create spam. -- roleplayer 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was used to create spam four months ago. There's no point blocking it now and I didn't remove it from UAA, so whomever did obviously agrees with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)