Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Your submission of John Ramsay (surgeon) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sasata (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On January 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Ramsay (surgeon), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I put more reliable sources for the nicknames, which means they are not to be deleted because it is in common usage, so we must chronicle it for historical sake.BLUEDOGTN 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
User:DarkFalls has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as DarkFalls's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DarkFalls!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nuria Bermudez
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - I'm the original article creator. Rather than removing all this stuff, why don't you give me the chance to find proper, reliable sources to back some of it up, or discuss with me why they're unreliable? Seems a bit unusual to remove huge chunks without giving the original author a chance to add a citation or improve the article! Can you not replace some of your recent deletions and add a "citation needed" tag? --Tris2000 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, I will not. Per our biography of living people policy, any contentious content will be removed on sight and not re-added until they are sourced reliably. And the sources in question are unreliable because they're from tabloids and gossip sources. Please read our reliable sources policy. And if I'm not mistaken, the article contains strong POV problems. —Dark 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
password hacking
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In re [1], I haven't found any more recent attempts to crack sysop passwords, however Wikipedia:Security says it could happen at any time. *shrug* John Vandenberg(chat) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your RfA Support
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DarkFalls/Archive January - March 2010 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As you know, I ve been block for almost a month now and have been trying to get unblocked. But Tipotety blocked me from using my commons talk page for absolutely no reason and he as been putting attacks on the OTRS Noticeboard as well as deleting relevant comments and questions not once not twice but three times. That to me sounds like vandalism,and i was wondering if you thinking the same way. He also put a frictuse block on my ip range. Considering the fact that that using my ip is my only means of communication on commons at this time makes it difficult because he must have disabled my email privileges as well, i could be wrong about that and I'll admit it if I am.
To me that smells alike abuse,and again I could be wrong. He had been reported to the admin noticeboard and that too got reverted.
Please advise
JTS 14:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The blocks themselves (Commons and en wikipedia)
It would be appriciated if you can unblock me (and my talk page) so that I would not have to use my IP for communication. Because of the fact my talk page is disabled, this is an informal unblock request. JTS 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)~
Tiptoety's conduct in this matter is not abusive, quite the contrary. If you feel the revoking of talk page access is unjustified, feel free to discuss this with him. I will not overturn another admin's decision in this matter. —Dark 06:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I remember right, it was you that initially blocked me. JTS 12:23, 13 March 2010
You do remember right. But I'm not the one who revoked your talk page access, and blocked your IP. —Dark 22:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm going by the origonal block in which Tiptoety Overridden, sorta speak. JTS 11:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way the block should not contine becasuse of the fact that I've been constructive in my attemps to be unblocked, not destructive and tell this to Gnangarra, and yess I ment every word in the comment thats bellow this one. 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been some bad behavior from admins and users alike on commons (your not on of em) that's causing me not to get the information on the permission form Stanley J. Anderson that I was talking about. It was sparked by Bmpowell, who dosen't care that I'm trying to get information that could get me unblocked (and thats my opinion notinng more nothing less). E-mailing them probably won't do any good because their stubborn and will believe anything that someone says. Please stop these rogues. They've done some serious collateral damage. 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Urgent message relating to blocks
Darkfalls
I've just recieved a message relating to the block on commons and the permission that was sent by Stanley J. Anderson has indead been accepted. However they can't find the files because you had deleteted them. Could you restore theese files so they can finalize the permission and unblock me so I can fix the descrpitive information. Also could you relay this information to the blockwarring admins on commons it would be appriciated. 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Admission of block reasons
To all admns on wikipedia and wikimedia commons:
As you all know by now, On January 28 I been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted permission to use those images that were deleted. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. I've also had herd some false clams that the permission wasn't genuine. It was sent by Stanley J. Anderson amelia.m@frontier.com) the actual copyright holder.
As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. However I should not have added to it, it was inexplicable behavior on my part. I am more mild mannered than that.
The socking incidents were also inexplicable behavior on my part. I shouldn't have done it all
I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users, and other users have been biting me. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get allong just fine. I apologize for everything that I did and you'll have my word that it will never ever happen again
Sincerly
Jeffrey Todd Schoolcraft
11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you very much for your help and understanding!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I will urge you in the future to act with civility in your posts. I understand that you feel angry about what has transpired, but using "it" in this context is not the best course of action. —Dark 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are absolutely right about civility. The thing is that I could come up with lots of differences to explain why I used "it". SPI request was the last drop only.I will not take it back. I understand that you have a right to block me for that, and it will be the right thing to do. Please do. I will not ask to be unblocked, and of course I will not remove the block message. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I sent you Wiki email, and I give the permission to disclose in full or in any part you'd like to. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
ANI
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Probably most other admins would have deleted stupid report on vandalism noticeboard and stop on that, but you've done so much more! You are a great administrator. It is a privilege to get to know you. I would have given you the same barnstar even, if you blocked me, because block is nothing in comparison to what the user was doing to me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just want to second what Mbz1 is saying. & I thought your summary of the issues here [2] was masterful, objective and carefully researched. You are an admin in a million. :D Stellarkid (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Dark. I have archived the message you posted at my talk page, that's why I would like to respond here. I hope you do not mind. I'd like to thank you one more time for everything you have done for me and for your message. I would also like to apologize for some troubles you have found yourself into because of my behavior. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There has been no trouble over my intervention. And on another note, feel free to remove the "disruptive images" templates from your user talk. I see no reason why they cannot be on your talk page. —Dark 23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your comment at AN/I. You are absolutely right I have to assume good faith no matter what. I have to stop responding no matter what is said or done to me, and treat Wikipedia as just another website. I am really ashamed of myself I got involved in last night disputes after everything you said to me. Sorry. From now on I'm starting a new life, and please feel absolutely free to warn and/or to block me, if I am to break my promise. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Would you mind checking block out again? I was about to decline it for various reasons, including no edits after the last warning. And I'm not convinced this is vandalism either; for one date I checked (the last one), reliable source suggest the IP is actually accurate, changing the death date from 1518 to 1517 per this [3] --Slp1 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The pattern of date changes look suspicious; I tried finding a fair few of the dates but Google was utterly unreliable. I've unblocked the IP anyway. —Dark 12:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I've started at the top and will work down the list and will keep on eye on him/her in any case. --Slp1 (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I looked at all of the date changes. Though a couple looked on their own to be plausible, the pattern of changing a variety of bio article birth dates by a couple years, all over the course of a few days, seemed extremely unlikely to be good-faith editing. Erictalk 13:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Certainly it was a reasonable deduction given the pattern, but having looked into it a bit more I'm still not so sure: so many of the date changes proved to be justified with sourcing. Anyway, as you may have seen, I have left a note on the IP's talkpage and watchlisted it too. If there are problems I will endeavour to take care of them.--Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for looking into the edits. I definitely jumped to a conclusion, though I looked a bit before I leapt. Erictalk 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No worries. There was no harm done, and actually some articles got some sourcing because of it!!!--Slp1 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
User talk:Hmmwhatsthisdo: AIV reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hmm. It appears that something is wrong with Twinkle, I meant to specify this. I'll try re-filing the AIV. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, silly me. Apparently the red boldfaced text means he removed it, not added it. Must be the lack of sleep getting to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problems. —Dark 07:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. - Zhang He (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
