This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
—
Newtouch Article
Regarding the deleted article Newtouch, you said those companies were not written by employees of those companies; they were written by volunteer editors who were able to demonstrate the service providers' notability. But can you be more specific to explain to me how do you know the editor is a volunteer not from the company inside and how does the editor demonstrate the notability? by what?...thx...
220.248.17.158 (
talk)
09:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL...OK I got it. So what if I find an authoritative,third-party,volunteer editor who can prove the notability with an article lack of unencyclopedic tone,can I get the pass of wiki paradise?-
Derek Cheng (
talk)
01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I only saw the standard unblock request. Strange that toolserver didn't pick up the autoblock. Thanks!
TNXMan21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for refactoring
My first post to the EE mailing list arbcom was made on September 22: "I received a link to the web site containing the email list on Thursday [that is, September 17, 2009] and read some of them."
[2] and went on to ask for evidence presentation guidelines. You wrote of me on Sep 23rd: " Given that his first post here was to ask for a copy of the archive..."
[3] Your statement about my first post is inaccurate, and I ask that you refactor it.
Novickas (
talk)
15:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jeske, periodically I visit your fine establishment for really just one purpose: please check out the recent contributions of
User:68.101.104.146, if you have a moment. I hadn't heard from the IP's band in a while, but they were back to perform on my user page fresh after a three-month block. Woohoo! Anyway, whatever you decide, thanks for your help!
Drmies (
talk)
18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page in August. I was wondering if you think it would be all right to unprotect it now. Regards, NW(
Talk)22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
with your previous comments of "
slot off, fragface" and "
chummer, shut the frag up", along with your other threats, i want to make it clear that i want you to stay away from me. ignore the urge to comment on me, and definitely stay away from my talk page. i am literally 100% freaked out by your language/aggression towards me. leave me the hell alone. do not respond to this. just rollback it or whatever. but leave me alone. if i do anything that requires admin intervention, i am sure one of the other thousands of admins will figure it out. you need to stay away from me because your behavior/obsession with me makes me extremely uncomfortable. i hope this request was polite/firm enough so that you understand and accept my request.
Theserialcomma (
talk)
10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at
Russavia's talk page. You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry!
Sorry about that!!! Looks like I had a brain fart... Would you like me to release the block on Vanisheduser5965 , or are you just planning to file the name change request? Just say the word.
Hiberniantears (
talk)
02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jeremy for your help . I'm leaving soon and will scramble my password , I just want to make sure that my page isn't vandalized by other editors . You were the only one who was helpful in this sea of bullies and so I thank you again.
Vanisheduser5965 (
talk)
15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I've been asked by
User:Walaa adel to contact you about you blocking her, I know she wasn't replying to your messages but this was because she's new to Wikipedia, I am her guide here...
we're originally from the
Arabic Wikipedia, and we are working on a translations project using
Google's new
Translator's Toolkit, that is made to specially translate Wikipedia Articles... and in this process, we were copying the pages into our namespaces, so the translated output gets published automatically in our namespaces in
our Wikipedia, where we finish the articles and revise them before publishing them to the main namespace...
so... the blocked user is one of our translators, and their part is mainly about using the toolkit, while the wikifying process comes back to us, as far as I know, copying the articles to our namespaces doesn't contract with the
GFDL that all Wikimedia projects currently work under. specially that the User did NOT do any action that should be considered as vandalism, or attacking other users.. they just didn't reply to your messages. which isn't even enough to delete the page... aside from blocking him... please refer to
WP:AGF
Um, en.wiki is also under CC-By-SA, which requires that the edit history be maintained; however, consensus is that translation efforts can be straight c&p moves, last I knew. I didn't block access to her talk page and had it watchlisted in case an explanation was forthcoming. I will unblock her and undelete every article I deleted. -Jeremy(
v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!)19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You! :).. of course all these copies will be deleted after we're done translating them.. and the original edit history in the original article will be intact... Thanks Again!
Koraiem (
talk)
22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Smash Bros Brawl - this game is new and still being sold
That is reason alone not to have that article on the main page - it makes Wikipedia look like an advertisement site. Since the game is new, then the designers might even release expansion packs or whatever in the near future (which could change the content of the article). The article isn't even that well written either. It's obvious that a bunch of Nintendo fanbois just voted their favorite game onto the main page.--
70.254.46.126 (
talk)
08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. Brawl is over a year old; most games, Brawl included, don't have a sell life of past six months. Also, please note that we have had featured articles for several businesses and products, and Wikipedia was not seen as an ad agency for them. Why the hell is it different for a video game? -Jeremy(
v^_^vTear him for his bad verses!)09:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just comments like "This is a great game. Why shouldn't it be on the front page?" that irritate me. I guess it isn't my decision though. And as for 4chan being featured on the front page, I never even knew it was there and I wouldn't have voted for it. Cheers.--
81.222.64.215 (
talk)
05:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Chaotic Goods do not follow the direct or indirect orders of a Chaotic Evil person. Also, how can I be lawful if I'd sooner disrespect the law where it's a hindrance to the greater good? -Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you reverted my edit to the Ip's talk page. I know I am not that editor but the user who removed the unblock request had no right to do that and I have warned them accordingly. Thank you.--
122.57.91.165 (
talk)
05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh whoops. Well, he was an INVOLVED admin and there is evidence to suggest that he baited that IP into lashing outand getting himself/herself blocked which is not acceptable.--
122.57.91.165 (
talk)
05:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the previous unprotection. Sorry about that. Ironically, that's the same thing I did to the vandal that decided to grace my talk page a few days ago. —
Dark05:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just pootling round the wiki and saw the really rather nasty threats on MB's page - I thought I'd pop in because I also noticed that you blocked the IP for one month - is that because the IP is likely to be dynamic, so longer would punish the wrong person? - I ask, because I would presume that generally you'd go 'forever' block when related to something like that... hope you're good regardless... and good on you for dealing with such genuinely horrible stuff.....
Privatemusings (
talk)
08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
heh! - does the '/b' thing mean that this is sort of organised at 4chan? - I don't really know much about that subculture, but it's a weird one, for sure! also, AF == abuse filter, right? :-)
Privatemusings (
talk)
08:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries - there are worse things that can happen. Ottava is even now viewing it as evidence that I am somehow 'suspicious' and am being investigated by someone (not sure who - personally I hope it's Mulder). Ah well, all part of life's rich tapestry, and I understand from the notes I see flying around that you are suffering worse on-Wiki problems at the moment. --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
04:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I find
your edit, removing my post to ANI about the problem at the Gosselin article a bit offensive. Not only do you post in all-caps (universally recognized as shouting in type), but you lecture me about a page I had no idea existed. A simple -- and polite -- note on my talkpage would have been nice. If I hadn't just checked back in the ANI history, I still wouldn't know about WP:RFO, and even your shouting would have been for naught. My thought was that -- what with the high traffic of administrators available at ANI -- that the oversight would come much quicker that way. Additionally, is the guy who boasted that he had taken a "screenshot" blocked yet? Has he been checkusered? If not, that should be done immediately.
UA23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please hear me out. It is SOP to remove requests that would be best handled by Oversighters off AN/I specifically because of the nature of the edits Oversight works with (i.e. nonpersonal public information). In fact, the header at the top of AN/I specifically says, "DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone." (boldface and caps in original.)
As for CU'ing, unless you have any proof of wrongdoing by that account, the CUs are not going to run a check because CheckUser (the tool) is very invasive of privacy. i.e. Checkusers will not run a check on gut suspicion, hard evidence is needed. Also, it's worthless if that account's his only one or if he constantly hops IPs. -Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have protected the
Marwat article because of an edit war between two members. One of them is banned, while the other one is inactive for the past month and half. It would be a good idea to remove the protection from the page so other Wikipedians can clean up the article or add/remove information. Thank you (
Ketabtoon (
talk)
14:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
You have three times reverted my messages to your talk page on an administrative matter,
[4][5][6] and you then issued me a 3RR warning.
[7] Is this consistent with administrative policy? I understand the desire for keeping discussions about a topic to a single place; however, that does not seem to me to be a rationale for removing talk page messages directed to an administrator which pose the administrator specific questions regarding the prosecution of administrative duties. I'm looking forward to resolving this with you rather than posting to an incidents noticeboard, which would seem to be the next step.
Robert K S (
talk)
22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Come on, this isn't a harassment issue. I was asking you questions pertinent to administrative actions, and you were covering them up.
Robert K S (
talk)
00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I was not covering them up, I was removing them because you were pursuing the same issue on TenPoundHammer's page. Now, I must respectfully ask you to stop posting to my talk page. -Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Not at all what I was thinking. Back in mah school-days "chummer" was usually preceded by "bum". More evidence that I'm just a dirty minded schoolboy. ;) As you were!
Crafty (
talk)
01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've refactored my own comment for clarity. Might I ask that you do the same? I feel that there is an important distinction to be made as the original quote is not mine and your comment is open to mis-interpretation. I think the refactoring makes it moot anyhow but I wanted you to know my intentions were for the best in order to bring awareness to the situation at hand, and I believe the way it is presented now is probably the most optimal (unless you disagree?)
JBsupreme (
talk)
10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, just wanted to drop you a note. When you were unblocking
Baldfreak(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log), you apparently accidentally skipped the 'unblock the user' step and moved right along to 'check for autoblocks' step. ;)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Calling someone "chummer," which you often do, is considered extremely rude by many. I have no idea if you intend to insult people discreetly, but it is unbecoming for an administrator to use a term with a common pejorative meeting. ("Chummer" is commonly a way to refer to someone as being homosexual in a derogatory fashion.)
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware it has alternative meanings. However, given the double entendre, it might be appropriate for you to stop using it, particularly given your penchant for sarcasm. It is far from apparent which meaning you intend.
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
04:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you joking? Do you honestly imagine users are familiar with your archived talk pages? In lieu of that, how many people are familiar with random words made up for a role-playing game? Given that in many real world communities this word is equivalent to calling someone a "fag," I'll again suggest that you refrain from using it. You are not playing
Shadowrun when you are acting in the role of an administrator on Wikipedia.
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Lighten up brother. I'm a fag and I don't find JC's use of the term "chummer" to be a problem. You're really getting this all out of proportion.
Crafty (
talk)
05:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I do find its use offensive, which is why I brought this up on his talk page. I wonder if new users may feel attacked both by this word and his tendency towards sarcasm. Is leaving a comment on his talk page "getting this all out of proportion?" I don't think so. More generally, Jéské's use of Shadowspeak simply seems inappropriate to me in this forum. This is the English language Wikipedia after all. Cheers.
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF. I am not "making an issue just to make an issue." I find the word offensive, as will other some other people who don't play your role-playing game and have no idea you are employing an obscure subdialect of English derived from a relatively unknown RPG. You are an admin and your actions are held to a higher standard. If a Wikipedia user civilly brings something to your attention, perhaps it would better not to simply dismiss me as a troublemaker. I gather from earlier comments that you are being harassed by 4chan users. I'm very sorry to hear this but I have no affiliation with them nor am I writing these comments for fun. I assumed you would be open to discussing this. If everyone here employed lexicons and unusual subdialects from their personal favorite obscure sources, communication would grind to a halt. All the more so if some of these words are offensive in mainstream English.
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call an RPG with four video game adaptations "relatively unknown". I'm permitted to use slang if I wish, especially if I've explained it (both early in my time here - see Archive 1 - and in
#Chummer? :) above). In fact, I did not realize the term had any meaning in English until long after I started using it (which goes to show you how often I read Urban Dictionary). What do you want me to do, wikilink every single instance of the word? -Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)18:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have hoped for more civil and productive discourse with an administrator. Since you asked, what I would like you to do is stick to
Standard English and not use jargon, surely unknown by the vast majority of contributors here, that derives from a game you play that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't see this as an unreasonable expectation or request.
75.100.83.178 (
talk)
20:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(RI) Jargon is unknown by the rest of Wikipedia editors? isn't that kinda like saying moles fly? In any case, I'm not going to stop using "chummer"; you have not persuaded me against it. If you really want me to stop it, drop a line at ANI or somesuch. -Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)22:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Responded there. Now archiving this bit.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regardless of what the term means as you see it, you should realize that its use can be interpreted as patronizing, just as repeatedly calling someone "buddy" or "pal" can be construed as patronizing, and your use of the term even with those who have asked you not to use it, as you have done with me, is callous, haughty, demeaning, and uncivil. The now-archived ANI on the above issue represents a typical failing of the process. Rather than examining the complaint against you, the discussion was directed against the complainer and quickly closed.
Robert K S (
talk)
19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha ha...no matter, the block sticks, and it seems the sock doesn't want to go away, as a rather fraudulent SPI filed today against me turns out. --
Eaglestorm (
talk)
07:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how that word comes across? First time I saw it used, it seemed vaguely derisive; is there a context for it I might be unaware of? (like a popular culture meme I've somehow missed...) --
jpgordon::==( o )21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, I think you might want to reconsider the use of the term; I know it's a term for friend the way you're using it, but it comes across as derisive, especially since you seem to use it with people begging to be unblocked. --
jpgordon::==( o )02:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I sort of have to agree - I can see that you don't mean it in a derogatory sense, but given the wide variety of people here it can come across that way. Anyway, just a friendly suggestion! -
Tbsdy lives (formerly
Ta bu shi da yu) talk08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Message added 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC). You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
However, i take it that this policy is only enforced on some but not others like Ohnoitsjamie who are apparently allowed to run amok adding nonsense to pages and including insults in edit comments? When I am no longer insulted I will respond in kind. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.56.187.191 (
talk)
01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying it only for your understanding of such statements.
This statement is symmetric to articles removal from Wikipedia. Removing members of Wikipedia from it editing called blocking or "ban". Thank you for your attention, sorry, that reading this message took your time, you can delete if for sure without any objections from me.·
Carn!?08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Before being blocked, this user made at least a thousand minor edits (removing a template from redirects). Do you happen to know if these were bad and need to be rolled back? Also, I'm curious how a user only 4 days old could even do this... as far as I know this can only have been possible with AWB, which the user shouldn't have permission for, or if the account is an unflagged bot account. (Maybe it's possible with Twinkle, I don't really know how that all works.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
At our university campus we have many internet users. Not everyone has a wirless connection, some people just use each others.
If "he" makes another account then, he will end up getting an innocent ip banned (everyone knows each others WEP password), you will not get rid of him am telling you, he is one of my best friends and i know him well.he will just use somone elses internet connection--
Mirroryou1 (
talk)
23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If the abuse gets so severe that we have to keep it perennially blocked, we will unfortunately have to. However, registered accounts can be granted
autoblock immunity, allowing them to ignore autoblocks, IP blocks, and rangeblocks on their underlying IP. —Jeremy(
v^_^vStop... at a WHAMMY!!)23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not think I would take at face value the protestation from Mirroryou1 that he or she is not Misconceptions2. The writing styles of these two accounts are very similar.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yet another can use *your* justification - that it's offensive - to cause a slippery slope effect, chummer. That's the issue with most nowadays - present bliss from an action that will ultimately haunt them. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a unique vocabulary, Chummer? The Xenu info is actually quite interesting. So I am not distorting what you mean, how am I creating a slippery Slope" Do you mean that in infringing on one image others can be removed on the basis of the one?
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
By having that image removed because it is offensive, you would in effect be saying that *any* image can be removed solely because it is offensive, nevermind the reasons the image is in the article. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed....I did make a mention we should at least make a caption that allows this image to be concealed unless a link was pushed to access it. I can understand that form of logic though.
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so we know there is a problem....and we can't do anything to fix it? It's not even my intention to soapbox a issue, I know technically speaking I am but damn. How twisted is this?
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The usual recommendation made to users who object to images is to alter their browser settings to mask the image. (A show/hide box as you're suggesting has been rejected on
Muhammad, another article with image disputes - see
Talk:Muhammad/FAQ). —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok I didn't mean you said it. I said we when obviously it is a smaller group of editors that believe this way. It's similar to somone posting a pov tag and the person who authored that version saying it's Nuetral
Hell In A Bucket (
talk)
07:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Except for
core Wikipedia policy, most policy is not set in stone. It might be worthwhile going to
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to discuss modifications to
WP:NOTCENSORED. But from experience, I don't think you have much hope, this sort of thing has been discussed to death and consensus has always been to not restrict or facilitate the restriction of relevant content in any way. -
Tbsdy lives (formerly
Ta bu shi da yu) talk
Help with talk page
I was wondering if you could give me some pointers about how to set up a talk page that looks like everyone elses. Is there a link to somewhere? Thanks
BullyBulldawg (
talk)
23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
What sort of talk page are we meaning here? If a user talk page, I wouldn't suggest tinkering with it too much until you get more used to the vagaries and intricacies of MediaWiki syntax. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider
this to be a bad faith edit, a personal attack, and harassment. I believe you should apologize, if of course you have any dignity left, which I doubt you do. I do not think the people like you deserve to be administrators. Please have a nice day, and do not forget to ask for CU--
Mbz1 (
talk)
21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well then, I guess you have no dignity left. Anyway I'd like to give you an advise: before you'll ever again will threat somebody with CU please do learn your subject, and learn it well just not to look stupid as you do now. Please have a nice day.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I know well enough about CU, but if you are indeed Israelbeach I doubt a CU would have found anything due to age. Hence, I filed an AN/I instead. Now get off my talk page and stay off; you're trolling. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Silly people moved the Bulbasaur article to the project space with all the history of the article and talk page with it. The article's history was moved back to
Bulbasaur, but
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur still needs to be moved to the correct place. The problem is, Talk:Bulbasaur has history and some talk on it. Could you switch the two pages, put the Milestones banner and "Possible refs" section on the real page, and then delete it? Feel free to do an easier way. Blake(
Talk·
Edits)03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
duh! all that wasted research and now I feel like a damned fool. I still have to go strike out my comments. Thanks for the note on my talk!
Stellarkid (
talk)
16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've got it watchlisted and was just wondering if there was any reason you've protected the article
Fort Albert? It isn't much of a vandal magnet (at all actually) and I tend to find articles like this benefit from IPs who add interesting info that I can frequently find sources for later. Cheers,
Ranger Steve (
talk)
23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
and epic lulz. xeno, I would just downloaded Adblock Plus and block all images from that site with a filter. That way, you won't ever unwittingly see child porn. NW(
Talk)22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Omirocksthisworld
Looking at his response after you declined his unblock, and without looking at anything else I admit, my feeling is that 31 hours is overkill. In fact, if his response after the unblock request had been in the unblock request, I might have granted it.
Dougweller (
talk)
11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on the Arbitration beat for the Signpost.
I took the liberty of slightly copyediting your description of one of the cases this week to ensure that it read as neutral. I hope this is all right, but please feel free to revert or edit further if you disagree or have any questions. Regards,
Newyorkbrad (
talk)
18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed mention about Sbs101 from my statement. I did not realize that my statement should not exceed 500 words, so now I made it shorter. If you'd like to, you may adjust your own statement accordingly. I also changed the title of this post in accordance with the new title of the request. Thanks.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am still unsure of why you protected it or marked it 'indefinite' - Just because there is some chat on a non related internet site - wait till anything happens and then block it and block it for a week, 2 or three but not 'indefinite'
Codf1977 (
talk)
11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you want me to spell is out for you? THERE IS A RAID THREAD ON /B/. YALE WAS SUGGESTED AS A TARGET. ONCE THE RAID THREAD 404s I WILL UNPROTECT EVERY ARTICLE I PROTECTED. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes spelling it was exactly what was needed - I asked a simple question, all you needed to do was answer it in a simple non-complicated way - you are an admin you should have realised that. I think the indefinite block is WRONGCodf1977 (
talk)
11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jeske. I've been doing some thinking about filter
287 and almost made a
WP:BOLD change to it to remove all article checks, but didn't because... well, just because. The condition limit hit rate is getting severe and letting some things through that should have been caught. I'm not saying your filter is causing the problem, just that yours seems to be one that can be easily optimized. I'd like to (1) remove the sysop check and (2) remove all article checks, because in all cases, none of those phrases seem valid. This would significantly reduce the average number of conditions which is brought up pretty far by the "or" operations thrown in. Thoughts? Feel free to respond here or on IRC, whatever's easier. --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
06:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I adjusted it. Please double-check it when you get a chance. I don't expect you to understand the second condition, so just trust me that's right. I do want you to take a look at the first condition -- that wasn't there before. (I am intentionally being ambiguous here because it's a private filter and don't want to release details unnecessarily -- if you're confused feel free to contact me on IRC.) Anyway, I hope the first condition's ok, because it will help efficiency quite a bit. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, --
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
10:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw it there first; hence my pointed question there. I'm not sure if this is a couple of friends completely misunderstanding Wikipedia policy or something more sinister; I'm assuming it's the former. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Two questions
May I please ask you how and why the link to my talk page got
here?
1)No idea (I never heard of that forum until just now, when you brought it up); 2)Yes. However, that account's not been used for several months, unless someone else has gotten my pass there. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please remain civil
IMO the second part of this
edit summary was not necessary and offensive not only to the one it was addressed to, but to all people with developmental disabilities. May I please ask you to remain civil to everybody including disruptive users?--
Mbz1 (
talk)
01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not a developmental disability he has (and I have one, so don't patronize me about them); it's more like paranoia that should be best addressed by seeing a psychiatrist, not trying to convince us that his X-Files fantasy is indeed reality with an endless parade of sockpuppets. Wikipedia is not his therapist. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)01:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
May I please ask you to review
wp:civil? Please read: "Be careful with edit summaries.
Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often written in haste, particularly if there is an
edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to
explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation". There's no single instance in the policy, which justifies incivility and personal attacks to any user. Besides, if you are to continue to use such languages with the disruptive users, sooner or later you will use the same language with absolutely innocent users, as you've done with me. So, it is better never to use such language at all. Period.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you have claimed before (in your failed Arbitration case, I believe), that you have no personal issues with Jéské. May I ask why, then, you seem to be
tracking every one of his edits so closely? That kind of behaviour is not usually encouraged on Wikipedia, regardless of what run-ins you may have had with the editor before.
MelicansMatkin (
talk,
contributions)
03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
MelicansMatkin, So far I "tracked" only one of the administrator edit. If you read my "failed arbitration case" closely you would have known that the purpose of my reqest was to prevent other people suffering from incivility, buliing and harassement by administator Jéské Couriano. I have nothing against him personallly, but I believe all administrators should be civil. Of course administrator Jéské Couriano has the right to seek "dispute resolution, process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.", or block me, if he believes my behavior is disrupting.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with
Messiah Foundation International and helping out with the IP address. Since its protected now, the admin protecting it suggested that we seek comments from other editors to stop the edit warring for good. I think this will be the best way to do it, and hopefully you wont have to deal with reports about edit warring on the article anymore. Thanks again! -Omi(
☺)
10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just yesterday I pointed out to you your edit summary and asked you to review
wp:civil and today
here we go again. Here is a quote from
wp:civil "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks."
Jeremy, I know you might think otherwise, but I am doing what I am doing not only for the users, who might get offended by your comments/edit summaries, but also for you. Please believe me, you will feel so much better, when you stop talking as you do now, and nobody would complain to you any more. I hope you'd agree with me that you have a problem that should be taken care of. I believe you should block yourself for few minutes or for a day with the block reason "PA and harassment". It would be a good medicine, and it will help you to avoid using such language in the future. Besides it will show to everybody that you try to be fair and mean business.Thanks.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Jéské - I think Mbz1 has a fair point here. Chill out a bit with the edit summaries - it's not all that long ago that we had to oversight one or two of yours.
WP:CIVIL applies to us all, especially admins. Don't go blocking yourself tho' - please :) Just step back and try to not let socking and vandalism get so personal -
Alison❤23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just about had it with this one, however, especially his X-Files fantasies. Not to be mean, but I'd sooner face /b/tards anyday or make direct mental contact with a post-EarthBound Giygas rather than play Whack-a-Crackberry-Vandal. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy - you're waaay off the mark here right now. First off, he's a she, okay? Secondly, you completely missed her point. You're a long-term vandal fighter and you do a damn good job at it, but you're clearly battle-weary here and need to just chill a bit. You know I know what it's like - we've all been there at some point, right? All I'm saying is that I've had to mention this more and more over the last month & you're not getting much better, from what I can see here. Please step back and try to be less snarky? -
Alison❤00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that Mbz1 has taken to watching all of Jéské's contributions, I think it's fair enough to say that she is more than aware that an edit summary on the page of a vandal he is blocking who she has never had contact with is not made in reference to her, Alison.
MelicansMatkin (
talk,
contributions)
00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but I was referring to his "just about had it with this" comment and not his original vandal one -
Alison❤00:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
(intended)Jéské, I'd like to ask you a question please. Do you believe that all users, and administrators in particular, should be civil to anybody, and I mean anybody, and under any circumstances? Do you believe that, if you personally attack a sock and a vandal or a blocked user or a disruptive user, or even a user, who personally attacked you , you drag yourself to his/her level, instead of showing to him/her how to behave using your own behavior as an example, and maybe in 1 case out of 100 make a better user out of that sock and vandal? Thanks in advance for responding my questions.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is a chance to better a user, Mbz1, I usually take it if they're reasonable. If we're talking someone irredeemable, parley with them is like trying to persuade a wobbly fence to stay upright. JI Hawkins is an irredeemable case. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You're still obliged to remain civil at all times, Jeremy. That's why you're getting a name amongst the vandals as a
Lolcow, and which is why they keep coming back for more. Seriously! You need to keep your cool and be civil at all times -
Alison❤01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy, you are very angry, and probably rightly so, with vandals and socks. Yet I hope you'd agree with me, that, if you're to continue to use such language with them as often as you do now, this language will get into your habit, and you will use it with everybody else as well?--
Mbz1 (
talk)
01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, Mbz1, if you knew as much of my history as Alison or jpgordon does, you'd realize why I am far more curt with vandals (especially sockpuppeteers) than I am with other users. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)03:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jeremy -- please? You're one of our very, very best vandal fighters. Until very recently, every time I've seen your name, I've had great confidence that a good block has been made, that a rotten piece of vandalism has been eradicated, that a rotten piece of vandal has been extirpated. But at the moment you're heading for annoyance greater than any vandals could possibly cause you, and it's getting hard for the rest of us to look the other way. I'm not going to lecture you -- I'm going to beg you to use some better-than-common sense. --
jpgordon::==( o )01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've just ran that SPI case and picked up one or two others. But
this edit - what did you hope to achieve with that other than stirring up trouble? C'mon - please don't do that -
Alison❤07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. Her kindness and civility are laudable, though. And to a guy who just said; ""I'm not JI Hawkins you stupid sumbitch. I've never even heard of him. Ever stop to think that my edits weren't vandalism, but indisputable facts? Ever think of that you prick?" - ugh! It's a difficult job for all, tho' -
Alison❤07:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the first unblock request where he's hurled profanities and insults at admins. Many of the ones from early January are of that stripe. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Especially given how determined this guy is to ram this conspiracy theory down our throats. I'm at a loss to say anything that won't make me come across as being an ass-shell (especially given the singlemindedness this editor shows), so I've not got much to say. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I read the message you left at my talk page and followed the link. I absolutely agree with you that such language is hard to take, yet IMO it's part of your job to deal with users like those ones. The user is clearly very disruptive and wants attention. Do not give him that attention with long edit summaries, do what should be done like delete his contributions, block him, but otherwise just ignore him. IMO a user like that JI Hawkins will only enjoy your long edit summaries because he would treat them as he's succeed in irritating you. I know me leaving message at the user's talk page was probably silly, yet I am not sure I "got snubbed". He probably never seen my message simply because he has no need to log in as JI Hawkins. --
Mbz1 (
talk)
16:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I'd be RBI'ing. However, this vandal isn't motivated by personal attention, rather attention to his X-Files fantasy, which I've been denying him. I saw a filtered edit he made on a new account; he actually *blasted*, not praised, me for rollbacking all his conspiracy bull. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)20:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
(intended)Well, I have thought for some time about JI Hawkins and his socks. I've seen that
user:Agent J 99at least tried to make some positive contributions (the stub he has started was not removed so far). Maybe next time you'll see another sock of him try to talk to him. I know it is very hard to impossible, but I would have still tried. BTW about "conspiracy theories". When you wrote about me "Troll-o-meter is thru the roof; maybe I should ask for a CU to see if this is Israelbeach" wasn't this a conspiracy theory on its own? I mean you thought that I am a sleeping sock of
user:Israelbeach, a sock, who for almost three years behaved, and then suddenly with a single edit blown up all his hard earned cover. Wasn't this a wildest conspiracy theory one could have came up with :) ? Have you ever seen such "sleeping socks"? If you did, I would be very interested to hear the story. I like such stories :) Later you ended up requesting SPI on me and the socks of
User:Pickbothmanlol, the very socks, whose only contributions were ... to attack me. I do not know
User:Pickbothmanlol, but I wonder, if he has ever created any socks, who were attacking each other? I'd like to get response for this question, please. So, you see, Jeremy, you also have some conspiracy theories on your own.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
1) The reason I never filed an SPI against you in re Israelbeach is because there would be nothing there - Israelbeach, as far as I am aware, is too stale to check (CUs only hold such data for a brief amount of time). 2) Pickbothmanlol's MO is to target users currently under discussion at AN/I - a criterion he'd never match as he's banned. 3) Yes, I have seen such sleepers - Before he drove me batty last year, I was mainly focused on stemming
Grawp's vandalism; part of his MO was to create sleeper socks specifically to perform disruptive (and in many cases, harassing and thus oversighted) pagemoves. *flicks tail* —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)04:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In other words you requested SPI on me versus socks of Pickbothmanlol only because you knew SPI on me versus Israelbeach will produce no results! Jéské, SPI you've requested on me should have never been requested, it was a harassment in its worst. I could not have been
Grawp because none of my edits was disruptive in any way,I could not have been Pickbothmanlol because his socks never targeted his own socks, I could not have been Israelbeach because his English is perfect, mine is far from that, not to mention many other factors. To tell you the truth I am jealous to Israelbeach. He is a captain in Israeli Defense Forces. He has fought for his people in a real life not only here on Wikipedia. I wish I were able to say the same about myself. Jéské, I will not bother you with this post anymore. I hope from now on you'd be civil, would avoid PA,would assume good faith instead of coming up with wild conspiracy theories. If it is the case, I will not show up at your talk page anymore.--
Mbz1 (
talk)
16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you asked if I'd ever seen sleeper socks. You did not specify in regards to you in your question. Also, the SPI filed in your name was primarily because I wasn't as sure of PBML's MO then as I am now, and based on the behavior I reasonably (and foolishly) assumed his accounts were yours. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1 - what Jéské is trying to say, as only he can :), is that he completely goofed up on the SPI report for a number of reasons. He screwed up bigtime and he's really sorry it happened. He's learning from the situation and would like to apologize to you for dragging you into this mess in the first place. Right, Jéské? -
Alison❤20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Alison! If I could think about something good that came out of my experiences it is that I met some very nice and very kind people, who I did not know before, the people, who were able to forgive me for what I have done (you know what I am talking about), and to help me feel better. You are one of them, Alison! Jéské, I've missed your apology. Would you care to repeat it, if of course you feel comfortable doing so? Right now the most important thing is not an apology of course, but rather that you have understood that no matter who you're talking to you should assume a good faith and remain civil. If after all of that you'd become a better administrator, I will know that my suffering did not go in vain.Thanks. --
Mbz1 (
talk)
20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for any and all suffering I've put you thru as a result of the accusation at the spam-blacklist, the An/I thread, and the incautiously-worded SPI. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Howdy Jeske, what's with your recent spate of semiprotections? Some of those articles have barely been touched, and one of them is today's FA. I'm sure you have a good reason, but to the casual observer it isn't readily apparent, so I'd appreciate some clarification. Thanks. --
Bongwarrior (
talk)
01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, but they haven't actually done anything yet. I think it might be an overreaction, but if you think it's not, I trust your judgement. --
Bongwarrior (
talk)
01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It was a raid thread I was actively monitoring. Because there's a tendency to "roll" a title until it reaches the GET number, I protted it immediately once I saw it; it's unprotected now. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No problems. In the future, if you notice me doing mass-protections, assume that a /b/ raid thread or two is active and know that I'll unprotect all the affected articles once the thread(s) 404. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
lol - Jeremy, you should put a banner on your userpage, "This user is a /B/tard" - I think you've earned it at this stage :) -
Alison❤02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that you were actively involved with this project, I just wanted to communicate to you that I'm seeking to revive the project and get on with the rules. A poll has been started to help choose a set of rules. Any comments, help, whatever,... would be appreciated. Hopefully we'll be able to get some progress on the developement of the game, which has been halted for some time. Thanks, ♠TomasBat02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to give you a heads up that I've asked for a second opinion from another CU on that user, as I too have doubts as to connection between
User:Spaceghostguy and the
Kentucky Fried Vandal. I also have doubts on behavioral evidence with that sock mentioned as well, but we might as well run a check (assuming a CU is willing). –
MuZemike07:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Alison for a second opinion after I emailed the original CU and challenged his findings; he's not entirely certain SGG's not collateral. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I notice4d they were trying for 200M last night while I was skimming it for Wikiraep threads.
Ninetails fails as a forced meme and is rapidly going nowhere. I notice that ED deleted the article earlier today -
Alison❤01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me; he's been rather anal about getting this stuff out of view. Just makes him even more a fragging hypocrite given the fact he's attempted to out others. —Jeremy(
v^_^vBoribori!)02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I LOL'd. Not only that, but it was originally released under the
GFDL and you can't simply revoke that. While I'm all in favour of on-line privacy, etc - this guy is on his own. Not only did he repeatedly publish his own
dox, he's been fooling around with my own juust a few days back. So he can go to hell -
Alison❤02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he should consider becoming a person of no account. The only thing that will let him regain his anonymity at this point is by dropping off the face of the net for a long while. No 4chan threads, no Wikipedia, no nothing.
That'll never happen. I believe he enjoys the dramaz too much to let a small thing like loss of anonymity get in the way. In any case, I've watchlisted both images, so I'll catch any *ahem* inappropriate changes. —
Huntster (
t@c)02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And nice catch on the deletion requests, Huntster! If he's constantly targeting them, just let me know and I'll prot them over there (I'm a Commons admin) His own dox are one of the few things he actually does care about, that and his google presence. Unfortunately, one of the
ED sysops (not me!) just posted his RL name over there the other day, too -
Alison❤02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
J, I'm sure he has some interest in getting his name removed, but part of me thinks he does it just to screw with us. —
Huntster (
t@c)02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi~! No offence to you but why the need to explain? I mean it's quite self evident that Truthseeker is very clear about his own actions but yet conducts it on purpose with wilful intent to harass or in an attempt to out another editor. As noted by another editor, we can extend so much AGF but there has got to be a limit somewhere. Per point number 3 of
WP:OWB, note that I subscribe to
WP:DENY &
WP:RBI. Regards. --
Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™07:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh never mind! Sorry, they weren't claiming to be you, they were noting that you speedily deleted the article! Okay, sorry. Please ignore, and feel free to delete this message. -
DustFormsWords (
talk)
06:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There seemed to be a growing consensus on that page that the block on Collectonian
fed the other user you blocked for the same incident. An AN/I discussion or discussion with you on-wiki would have been antithetical given the circumstance. (I apologize for not dropping you a line, but I wasn't caffeinated when I did the unblock and spaced on it.) —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, but it is my understanding that community consensus can validly form only on community fora, not on user talk pages where a user's friends (or opponents, as the case may be) are likely to be over-represented. That is why the blocking policy refers to ANI. At any rate, I disagree with this unblock rationale; while I agree with the DENY essay, I believe that it is exactly by taking into account the troll's reaction to the block of Collectonian that you give him recognition and take his bait. It would be better to ignore the troll and assess Collectonian's conduct solely on its own merits.
I take it, then, that you will not object if your own future blocks are undone without discussion or comment, and that you assume responsibility for any editwarring that might ensue as a result of your unblock. Sandstein 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I have never objected to my blocks being undone provided there is a legitimate reason behind the unblock and the user being unblocked isn't a banned user. And I am well aware of the nature of the block; if edit-warring resumes I won't hesitate to reblock. —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Karunyan back and at it again
First, thank you for reviewing the block on me earlier and unblocking me. Karunyan's block has expired, and his first edits were to once again begin trolling and reverting the Blood+ character list (which another editor had reverted back to the pre-edit war state), with a summary of "not trolling anymore"
[8], He also is now going around and doing the same to Jack Merridew's edits, who was the one who restored the Blood+ list, including doing one with a summary of "Using a troll puppet to deal with a troll, huh? Admirable.."
[9][10] He seems determined to continue his previous behavior, and continues referring to himself as a troll. I left a note at ANI
[11]--
Collectonian (
talk·contribs)
13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Since you are in the Birthday Committee, I am not sure if you can answer this question, but if you can, please do: Do I have to get something discussed to add my name to the calendar for the birthdays, or can I just add it? --Hadger16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, especially after looking at the other edit made by that editor at the village pump. Perhaps you could have a look at the history of the editor's user page, and revert my changes if necessary. Thanks,
Drmies (
talk)
20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
He didn't edit for a couple months before this vandalism spree (last legit edit appears to be Feb 01, IINM), so I'd wager that he wasn't compromised in November. I'll revert. —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't count your chickens yet; he's got an unblock request up claiming he's not compromised and arguing that "gay boner" is a legit redirect page for homo erectus. :( —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW,
this does not strike me as a very serious edit, and it's from November 2009, amidst a brief flurry of edits that also produces that weird user page. Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, cocktail hour. Have fun mopping,
Drmies (
talk)
22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for these reports: they are most helpful. I've rather heavily edited this week's. I wonder whether you might consider changing the wording thus in subsequent reports. Please let me know if there are issues.
That was not a personal attack. Calling me a DOT is!!
Show some damned decency and quit looking the other way to official and false Wikipedia racism in its so called encyclopedia.
Lulaq (
talk)
05:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, or else you will be blocked for your behavior. You did personally attack the IP, and now you're attacking me. I'm not endorsing the edit the IP made, in fact I would have reverted it. —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Calling you insensitive to racial bigotry is not an attack. It's an opinion and a very valid one, and you're attempting to censor Wikipedia with your admin powers. I'm an Indian and I do not take kindly to someone calling me a dot. I did not attack the IP and you have conveniently deleted what I said.
Lulaq (
talk)
05:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm calling you insensitive to racial bigotry that stayed on a Wikipedia article for 5 whole days and probably would have stayed a lot longer had I not been interested in the closing times of bars around the DC area.
Lulaq (
talk)
05:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you honestly think everyone watches every page on Wikipedia? It's not uncommon for vandalism on little-watched pages to go unnoticed for a long while; that doesn't mean Wikipedia is racist. If anything, that means it's understaffed! —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)06:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeremy, I think your interaction with Lulaq on this page was unnecessarily rude. I hope you can try to use more empathy in this kind of situation in the future. Once this one got to where it was, bringing it to ANI was reasonable, and hopefully the discussion there will calm things down, but it's always preferable to avoid getting upset people even more upset than they were in the first place.
66.127.54.238 (
talk)
08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, the post that triggered this was actually a very reasonably-worded personal attack warning. I wasn't expecting the response I got whatsoever. —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)08:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bright side is you're more experienced now and can do better next time ;). The uw-npa4im template is explicitly threatening and completely unsympathetic, which is just about certain to get an angry person angrier, not what you want. I think it's best to avoid using templates at all in such situations. It's better to just write in English in a human-to-human style, expressing some understanding for the problem while asking the person to cool it.
66.127.54.238 (
talk)
17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I've been watching that page since it seems to keep getting filter-tripping edits, and the needling of you by those IPs smacks of an attempt to make a new meme. —Jeremy(
v^_^vDittobori)06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)