This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Completely appropriate. I just had the idea that, since he appeared to be online, a slightly edgier warning might coax him to join in a discussion over at 3RR. Most likely that would not have worked, and your close is well-justified. It might be worthwhile to log your block in the WP:ARBMAC listing, for future reference, and since it seems possible that this editor will continue in the same vein in the future. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you granted someone rollback access. Is that the only admin ability that can be granted separately, or were all the abilities split? I've been away for a year and I have no clue when it would have happened. - Mgm| (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Who's there? MascotGuy. MascotGuy who? Sorry, no answer because the little idiot has yet to edit a single talk page in four years. He has, however, created six new accounts. Oy vey. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Relating to this Korlzor case, some obvious sockpuppet IP accounts have started again: see here or here. Maybe someone should put an eye out for this user, because he/she gets completely out of hand as last time? Regards,-- HJensen, talk 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Knock knock!
Who’s there?
Admin
Admin who?
Add minestrone – for flavour!
Knock knock!
Who’s there?
Admin
Admin who?
Admin who granted me rollback, silly!
Don’t worry, my reverts will be better than my Knock knock jokes ;) (they couldn’t be much worse)
Paxse (
talk) 15:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety. I noticed you making a procedural edit to WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusino. Based on your experience, do you think this case should be withdrawn? I know this part of the world is rife with sockpuppets but I myself don't know of any other suspicions connecting Ragusino to other *named* accounts. (The CUs are unlikely to want to confirm any IPs). Just don't want me and Alasdair to be scolded for fishing. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Tiptoety, in all the time I've known you, I've seen you as being very kind and patient with me and other users, even when you didn't have to be, which really means a lot to me. I think you deserve this. Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 06:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, Tip. You have e-mail. -- Avi ( talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I see you are willing to grant rollback permissions so could you please accept my request here? Thanks. ChunkyStyle ( talk contribs) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think you overlooked one very important condition of the editing restrictions that Boodles agreed to. In the ANI discussion the problem arose with the idea that Piotrus works in tandem with others. In direct response to this issue you explicitly said that the third party revert must come from "Any random user, a third party if you may". It is a situation like this that the "neutral editor" was added to his 1rr restrictions. Indeed, a major part of the arbitration case concerns these two editors, Piotrus and Poeticbent, tag teaming. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Tiptoety. 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.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent} Brewcrewer I do agree with you there. The idea was to ensure that the 1RR restrictions were not gamed. Let me say this. 1) When I placed the block I was unaware that Poetic was involved so heavily in this dispute (and was completely unaware that he was considered to be one of the "tag team". 2) I feel that the block is still valid seeing as there is no hard evidence to prove that Poetic is in fact tag teaming, and in no way gamed the block. Boodles did violate 1RR. Having said that, I have done some thinking and see that this may be doing more harm then good. I do not want to give off the impression that blocks will be used in a manner to give better odds to one side of the dispute opposed to the other, but at the same time I feel that Boodles did in fact edit war and disruptive users need to be blocked. So, I am currently a bit stuck here (and am not afraid to admit it) but am not feeling comfortable unblocking but will allow if another admin sees fit (preferably other than Jay) to unblock as time served for edit warring. (I am going to paste this diff on ANI for other admins to review). Tiptoety talk 06:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed this entire issue here and on AN/I. On the one hand Boodlesthecat was edit warring. On the other hand, so were his opponents, and it is not completely clear whether he broke his 1RR restriction or not. As Tiptoety has said he would not object if an uninvolved admin unblocked, and as Boodlesthecat has already been blocked for 3 days, and indicated he will be more careful in his editing, I am unblocking. I recommend that both sides in this be very careful about edit warring here. Khoi khoi 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See the note I just dropped on User talk:Del arte. I'll take care of the case rename and tag changes. Let anyone else know that you think should know. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just so you know you granted User:NW's Public Sock Rollback permission who had like 7 edits and I had over 250, I think that is unfair. What do you have to say about this? My Account 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Howard2112 continues adding the fansite to Coldplay's article. His latest edit was today. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
If your still doing adoption, would you mind adopting me? -- Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Tiptoety. See my response at G2bambino's talk-page. GoodDay ( talk) 16:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another COTW. But first, just remember that those other guys only want to raise your taxes, but I won’t. A big thank you to those who helped make improvements to Bridges on US 101 and participating in The Semi-Annual Picture Drive. And unlike the other guys, I won’t ship your jobs overseas! This week, we have Mr. Bipartisan Wayne Morse who went from being a Republican to an Independent and finally to a Democrat. Then, let’s see if we can finish up creating articles for members of the Oregon House before their January inauguration. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I’m Aboutmovies, and I approve this message. Paid for the committee to elect Aboutmovies. Aboutmovies ( talk) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to register my objection to the one-sided action you took by placing a warning on my talk page. Your fellow admin at the 3RR Noticeboard found no violation. You have not addressed the points raised by me in the relevant thread on Admin Noticeboard/Incidents. Specifically,
You ask that I "refrain from continually reverting" but I never did so. Also, your imputation that I believe that I WP:OWN the Article is unfounded. I am not interfering with the AfD process, unless you count my comments there as interference. I have left the AfD Template untouched always.
An evenhanded response, in my opinion, would take my AN/I thread into account.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat is currently listed on AIV, but seeing the messages on his/her talk page, I'm not sure whether to block for the apparent vandalism cited: the person listing Boodlesthecat is currently being investigated in a sockpuppet case, and I can see that Boodlesthecat has had some sort of editing restrictions. Since you blocked Boodlesthecat recently, I'm assuming that you know his/her situation: would you please block him/her, or if a block isn't warranted, remove him/her from the AIV listing so someone doesn't improperly issue a block? Nyttend ( talk) 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to input into Someone else's note to you, but we are unsure how to contact you. Can you please help us retrieve our DION RAMBO's edit? We would greatly appreciate it. We didn't save the input, but we will take it and clean things up. Thank you sooo much. Fan of Talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan of talent ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tiptoety, sorry to bring this up again, but User:Howard2112 keeps adding the fansite link to Coldplay's article and still doesn't listen to the warnings left on his talkpage. I was wondering if you can do something about this. --
ThinkBlue
(Hit
BLUE) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you previously blocked the above user for disruptive editing. Well he's at it again. He's mass changing Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and blind reverting people changing it back without going to talk. For example this series of reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&action=history
I realise this editor has a history of doing this and he had to be reverted in order to stop disruption to Wikipedia. 213.202.143.233 ( talk)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.143.233 ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked both of these editors for blatant edit-warring on the named article. I see an accusation that the IP editor is a sockpuppet, but nothing more than an accusation with no evidence and no pointers to evidence to back it up. The established editor has indulged in edit-warring before, and should know better. The blocks are for 24 hours. Please feel free to amend or discuss the block with me if you desire. DDStretch (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Mooretwin is quite right: this IP is Likely to be Wikipeire. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, You protected Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK). It has now been confirmed that the series will take place [1]. I think it is time for the article to be created. 12bigbrother12 17:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety,
I am not quite sure if this is a sockpuppetry. Just looking at the edit history of Russavia ( talk · contribs), one can tell that he edited non-stop during last 61 hours (from 05:22, 11 November 2008 to 18:20, 13 November 2008). Previuos time he edited non-stop 24 hours (from 08:21, 9 November 2008 to 08:26, 10 November 2008). And so on, and so on. He edits a lot on three very different and specific subjects (a) Russian aviation; (b) Russian foreign affairs; and (c) he follows my edits everywhere after his recent block. I have no idea who else is using his account (perhaps Miyokan?), but this seems to be a violation of policy. What would you recommend? Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
←Well, that and that alone is not enough evidence for a CheckUser. But, that mixed with other evidence might be. Tiptoety talk 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment here in my role as a CheckUser. Tiptoety is quite right: the evidence provided here does not come close to justifying a CheckUser investigation. Unless there is credible evidence of some kind of abuse, this will always be called as "fishing". Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety. I have no objection if you modify the close of this case. WMC may care, but you could ask him. By the letter of the rules on edit warring, anything that ends the edit war is OK. If you think the protection is superfluous, you are welcome to undo that. It was my idea, not WMC's. Since WMC and I edit-conflicted on the close, the result may need work. The opinion of a third admin might be beneficial. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Tippy, pls close this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ColourWolf_(3rd_nomination)#User:ColourWolf. Look like throw away accounts to me. See my comment there. — Rlevse • Talk •
Hello Tiptoe, I would like to respectfully implore you to reconsider lifting the semi protection on Che Guevara. This futile process has been tried several times in the last year or so ... and every time it is met immediately with rampant vandalism. His life and legacy are too controversial for his article to be left without indefinite semi-protection. Today the entire article was blanked twice while being replaced with insults & vandalism that reflect extremely poorly on the entire project. I believe that others and I have worked too hard on the article, to have a situation where an anonymous IP address can negate all of that effort with a simple click (at a time where someone may be utilizing his article to find information on him). Please consider re-applying the semi protection which I believe was essential to establishing the foundation & stability of the articles quality as it currently stands. Thank you. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 03:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Quick question for you: Is adding a username to a disambiguation page allowed as long as the name matches the disambiguation perfectly? This link here is an example of what I mean. I was reading WP:D on if it's allowed, but I didn't find where it said that. Thanks for your time. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You have just blocked two innocent users whom you thought to be a sockpuppet of ColourWolf.
Just to let you know.
Thanks
Elemental of Truth ( talk) 16:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
As one of the admins who was involved in my WP:3RR block case, I am alerting you that Biophys has entered evidence into an active arbcom case, which you can view here. The decision was made to block myself for WP:3RR, but only warn Biophys, even presented with evidence of breaches of WP:BLP and violation of WP:3RR. I have no idea who did or didn't make that decision, but this will now be asked about on the arbcom. It was mentioned at the above 3RR case that the decision is harmonious, and on my talk page that the discussion is a relic (for the record, I stand by all of my comments in that particular section). As one can now see, it is not harmonious, nor is it a relic. I was going to post a message on your talk page before the arbcom development asking as to why there is "one rule for some, and one rule for others" and enter into discussion that way, but given the arbcom development it is now necessary for me to address this, what has now become an issue, on the arbcom. Sorry about that, but I don't believe there is any other way, and do not perceive this as a revenge or anything of the like because it is not, I am actually trying to sort these problems out outside of resolution structures. Anyway, this is just a heads up to advise you that I will be entering into evidence at the arbcom the relevant 3RR case and everything thereafter, so you may wish to put it on your watchlist, and respond to it if and when appropriate. Cheers, -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in usurping Beano with a unified login, and have done so already in my preferences. There are some accounts, however, that are taken and blocked for being vandalism-only accounts as shown here. Am I able to usurp them? How do I go about doing this easily? I've made logins (Beano1 or Beano123) in those projects in hopes that I can usurp them individually.... ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've recently come off a 24hr block from breaking 3RR on the About Last Night... (South Park) article. Looking to move on, is there anything you can suggest about the edit I wish to make? I would like to remove a blog entry, as it has been superceeded by a source that uses an actual interview with the show's writers.
I think this chappie has taken heart from a group of editors who had hounded me for a bit and would like to refuse any discussion for the sake of it. I just wish to trim down the South Park articles from the dearth of uncited or poorly cited materials they once had. I've worked my way through most of the articles (a fan with a bit too much free time perhaps) but I seem to be a bit stuck here.
Any suggestions? Alastairward ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tiptoety, I saw one problem with Template:Click. As I see it, it should display the "title" attribute of the template as a tooltip. You can see at the "Examples" section that it's actually showing the "link" attribute. Here's the problem: {{{title|{{{link}}}}}} and I think it should be: {{{title|{{{title}}}}}} Correct me if I'm wrong. Regards! -- StanProg ( talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Knock knock!
Who's there?
{{talkback}}
{{talkback}} who?
(okay, not funny, but I won't quit my day job)-- otherlleft ( talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Administrators,
Sock Puppets still live.....Vandalism started again....Please Protect [IIPM] [2] page...
Immediate Protection needed.....
Regards BIGBANGBOOM
Dear Administrator,
Again Sock Puppets Tampering the IIPM Page.....lets keep it protected for some more time...I Hope by X-MAS we will be able get rid of them by Protecting.....
Please Protect
Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NajiimP shows that he's got at least 3 more accounts. Hence, I declined his unblock request. OhanaUnited Talk page 06:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Administrator,
See the history page and you can see more n more number of SOCK Puppets..... I feel you should take some action....Protect the IIPM page....stop Vandlism....
Please Take some action on Urgent basis...
Regards BIGBANGBOOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbangboom ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You be interested in User_talk:MBisanz#could_you_find_a_neutral_election_aide? MBisanz talk 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tiptoety for granting my rollback permission! I noticed you emphasized 'clear' cases of vandalism, I just wanted to see if there were any edits I made that were not vandalism that should not have been reverted? Thanks again! -- mrdempsey 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have dragged myself over 3RR on the article The Jeffersons (South Park episode). I thought I was ok as I was changing one bit of information three times and then another bit the once, but rereading the policy, I think I may be in trouble. I reverted my own last edit, is that acceptable? Alastairward ( talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It is extremely bad form and abusive to close a discussion you are involved in, especially when you go ahead and give your friend the last word unchallenged. Seeing as how this is a discussion about admin abuse, and you have already threatened people against standard procedure, this looks extremely bad and must be remedied immediately. Ottava Rima ( talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
←Nope, was not asking for a medal. Just saying that there really is no longer a point to this discussion as the request has been carried out. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your unprotection of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. The edit war will not end until the warring parties come to the talk page. It got indef protected until that happens; please respect that and restore the indef protection as soon as you see evidence of whitewashing. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You deleted my user page "beasley23803". May I ask why? Also if I had made any mmistakes or violated something, could you just have told me so that I could edit it and correct any wrong doing. Can I please have my page restored, you can delete any of the content that was against the rules, I just want my page back. I'm new too this stuff and it took me a while to do. Whatever I did wrong was not intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley23803 ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you at least explain to me what were the myspacey parts? I want to create my page again using the same information, but how can I, if I don't know which parts to exclude.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beasley23803 ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You have banned one of my ips (201.31.242.162) for alledgedly participating in an edit war. However i have not broken any rules, nor have i reverted any edition more than 2 times.
If the reason of the ban were my editions on the article Badger, i would like you to review the history logs on the mentioned page since the other editions i did were made after Tony Fox started to discuss the issue propperly with me, as it can be clearly seen on the edit logs, and they are not reverts, but actually new editions with requested references and removal of unsourced content.
I kindly wait a response.
- 201.52.4.144 ( talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for granting me with rollback permissions. All the Best. Marek.69 talk 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Sorry, you don't know me, but I noticed that you had recently dealt with Str1977 ( talk · contribs). I don't know what to make of him, and am wary/weary of getting into a long drawn out argument on a page that has been stable for a very long time (after it had been rewritten by a gentleman from the garment industry). Could you please look at Talk:Pajamas and perhaps help out in dispute resolution there? Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Knock knock. Who's there? Tiptoety. Tiptoety who? Tiptoety making your watchlist look horrible by messing up page moves.
Glad you got it fixed quickly. ;-) -- GraemeL (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not here to complain, just to remind you that these are the double redirects and transclusions that now need fixing. I'd do it myself but, not being sure if the move will stick or not and figuring you'd be best placed to judge whether it is likely to, I thought it would be best to mention it to you. I'll fix them in 24 hours if you don't, however. CIreland ( talk) 02:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
See WP:ANI. I have started a discussion over unblocking the above user, who has been blocked since July by you. Please come to ANI and give your input on the matter. Thank you! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Tiptoety, could you move the conversation between me and Occidentalist ( talk · contribs) to the talk page from its RFCU page on the sockpuppeter? I think it is too long and irrelevant to needed information for checkuser to look at. I don't know I'm allowed to move it by myself, even though I filed the report. Along with it, I think a brief note on the blocking admin, and the sockpuppeter's self-confession "I created the account User:Documentingabuse solely to file an tag team report" should be added. Could you do that for me? Thanks.-- Caspian blue 00:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Oregon folks, it’s time for another edition of the fabled COTW. Thank you to all who helped make improvements to Wayne Morse and creating some members of the Oregon House. This week, we have by request Upper Klamath Lake which think made the news lately with a salmon plan. Then, in honor of the end of the harvest time, we will go farming with Fort Stevens. There is a beautiful link farm in the article that is ripe for harvesting into citations. It should provide for a bountiful feast, or alternatively you can take your hoe to it and weed some out. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. WARNING: COTW is not approved for children under 3 and may contain choking hazards for small children. DO NOT leave your child unattended with COTW. Aboutmovies ( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me permission to use rollback. Keep up the good work. Willking1979 ( talk) 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I'd like to help out with CU clerking. I'm reading through WP:RFCU/C; is there anything else I should know? Anything I should be aware of before I dive in? // roux 09:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Since its listing as in the outstanding cases on November 15 by MBisanz, it appears to have vanished. What's up? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you took action in the past and are familiar with this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1RR_violation_report. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The RfA Barnstar | ||
Tiptoety, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies
Thanks for uploading Image:Eugene Police Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back :) // roux editor review17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello to all the WikiProject Oregon folks, time once again for yet another bone chilling edition of the Collaboration Of The Week. I thank yee who helped make improvements to Fort Stevens and Upper Klamath Lake. For this first week of December, we have by request Mike Bellotti and his archrival Mike Riley, both in honor of that great tradition we call the Civil War (AKA the battle for the platypus). As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. This message is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents is strictly prohibited. Aboutmovies ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. While I understand that this is routine housekeeping, do you have a link to the discussion thread? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
[3] That idiot created a mess with user talk pages. I just found one which was basically vandalism. 96.232.11.55 ( talk) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but maybe you can delete the junk pages? 96.232.11.55 ( talk) 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for granting me rollback! I promise you won't regret it =] Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, there was already a discussion the talk page actually, under the Spanish Empire section. I tried pointing this out to User:Mines32 twice, once when he was reverting the entire page to an older version (which resulted in him getting blocked for a day after I brought it up at ANI), and after he was unblocked which got met with the "I don't care" statement on his talk page.
Only reason I went ahead with a revert of the IP entry rather than going to 3RR with it was I was already in the middle of something and forgot to bring it up there once done. My apologies >_<'-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is regarding the page
IIPM whose protection you removed. I don't know if you have been following the page for long, so just a few points FYI. The major point that the white-washers are working on is getting the Controversy section deleted, even though it is properly cited with valid references from major indian and foreign newspapers. They also want any other negatives deleted. And a lot of the fawning stuff they add about IIPM is either with cites to their own website, or then random press releases put out by the school that appear not in newspapers, but in press-release-collection websites. The whole purpose is to purge any negative mention of IIPM in google searches, and since wikipedia has a high google rank, they keep doing so. If you want to be convinced of IIPM's ceaseless whitewashing strategy above and beyond just wikipedia, go to
http://blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM. See how many splogs (spam blogs) pop up. And these splogs are created every hour or so, as you can see. No amount of semi-protection or even short term protection will work. The people whom I suspect to be IIPM employees, will just go back to creating spam blogs, and whenever the protection is lifted, return to wiki and start whitewashing again.
The only thing that can work, with such a concerted whitewash campaign, is a long term (if not indefinite) editlock, with changes to the page being made only after consensus on the talk page. You may choose to not put an indefinite editlock, and that's your opinion. But just thought I'd let you know about the context.
Makrandjoshi (
talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Come on. You honestly don't think I was teasing? lol But you did save that link, that has to say something. :P I was expecting something faarrr worse. Lord knows I may have said something bad. Well, I don't know. Its hard to keep up sometimes. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
They’ve got a new nick and a new variable IP. See the latest additions at [4] Edward321 ( talk) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)