Royalguard11 (talk | contribs) →Maltese people: comment for the record |
89.243.67.167 (talk) |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:IP, you have been banned from the Wikipedia community. Crowing, under such circumstances especially, is in very poor taste. And rather pathetic. [[User:Pietru|we are a marvelous Machine]] ([[User talk:Pietru|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
:IP, you have been banned from the Wikipedia community. Crowing, under such circumstances especially, is in very poor taste. And rather pathetic. [[User:Pietru|we are a marvelous Machine]] ([[User talk:Pietru|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:FYI, the anon has been uncovered to be [[User:Iamandrewrice]]. [[User:Pietru|we are a marvelous Machine]] ([[User talk:Pietru|talk]]) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
:FYI, the anon has been uncovered to be [[User:Iamandrewrice]]. [[User:Pietru|we are a marvelous Machine]] ([[User talk:Pietru|talk]]) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
::What are you ranting about? No, if one user accuses me of being someone, it does not make it so - a little old thing called a checkuser is used first. I'd be careful how you tread Pietru. [[Special:Contributions/89.243.67.167|89.243.67.167]] ([[User talk:89.243.67.167|talk]]) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Really, all I did was unprotect the page because there is no point in keeping full protection on for a month. I was watching the page to see if the edit war started again as a ''neutral party'', and I replied saying it had been re-protected because I try to answer requests/questions that are on my talk page. I have not taken a side or position on the issue, I was just holding up the principle that pages shouldn't been fully protected for excessive lengths. That is the extend of my involvement. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]])</small> 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
::Really, all I did was unprotect the page because there is no point in keeping full protection on for a month. I was watching the page to see if the edit war started again as a ''neutral party'', and I replied saying it had been re-protected because I try to answer requests/questions that are on my talk page. I have not taken a side or position on the issue, I was just holding up the principle that pages shouldn't been fully protected for excessive lengths. That is the extend of my involvement. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|T]])</small> 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:52, 22 March 2009
User | Talk | Contrib's | Awards | Userbox Archive |
Userbox Personality Essay |
Admin Page |
4 |
WikiDefcon |
3.67 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot —04:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
WP:RFP
Thanks for taking care of them. Can you also keep an eye on Chensiyuan (talk · contribs) who has been involved as well. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thierry Henry and Cesc Fabregas
Hi there, I hope you can look at the edit histories of Thierry Henry and Cesc Fabregas and appreciate that user:Bruninho and his IP socks have been belligerently forcing home edits that breach the wp:mos. I think these persistent breaches, given that they have been explained to the user and on Henry's talkpage to no avail, constitute vandalism. How should this be dealt with then? If I keep reverting, it's 3RR even though I think it's reverting vandalism. If I stop, the user hides behind a dynamic IP range and keeps slotting in those edits. Thank you. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Page protection for "business letter"
Hi there, Thank you for responding to my request for page protection for "business letter". I understand that my request was denied for lack of recent vandalism. I wonder if you were able to see the recent history on that page because for some reason the "history" link on the request for protection page did not show any recent history at all (i do not know why). If you were to open the Business Letter page and go to page history you will see what I'm talking about. the page was most recently vandalized on the following dates:
07:33, 6 March 2009, 02:14, 27 February 2009 , 23:23, 23 February 2009, 23:22, 23 February 2009 , 23:15, 23 February 2009, 20:51, 19 February 2009 , 22:49, 17 February 2009 ,19:27, 16 February 2009, 22:53, 1 February 2009, 22:51, 1 February 2009 ,20:03, 1 February 2009, 22:35, 31 January 2009 , 18:12, 29 January 2009, 17:59, 29 January 2009 , 21:14, 28 January 2009, 22:28, 27 January 2009, 22:06, 26 January 2009...
This pattern continued on over the last year. It appears to be all done by one person (similar vandalism) but with different IP addresses. Its extremely annoying to have to keep checking this page and then find whole parts missing or made nonsensical. It is also important to note that this page is not edited (for improvements) very often, and that 98% of all edits over the last two months have been vandalism or reverts due to vandalism.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Jonnyhottrod
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Protection
As per your comment for [1] would you please be able to tell me how i would do that thank you.
Take care
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 03:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Maltese people
Hi there, you recently unprotected Maltese people at my request, and said you were keeping an eye on it. There's been a new wave of activity, none too positive. Your involvement would be appreciated. It has been suggested that the anon at work is a known sockpuppeteer. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it's been semi-protected! we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the talk page discussion seems to reveal that my edits were preferred to Pietru's. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- IP, you have been banned from the Wikipedia community. Crowing, under such circumstances especially, is in very poor taste. And rather pathetic. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the anon has been uncovered to be User:Iamandrewrice. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- What are you ranting about? No, if one user accuses me of being someone, it does not make it so - a little old thing called a checkuser is used first. I'd be careful how you tread Pietru. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really, all I did was unprotect the page because there is no point in keeping full protection on for a month. I was watching the page to see if the edit war started again as a neutral party, and I replied saying it had been re-protected because I try to answer requests/questions that are on my talk page. I have not taken a side or position on the issue, I was just holding up the principle that pages shouldn't been fully protected for excessive lengths. That is the extend of my involvement. -Royalguard11(T) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)