User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 2

re: Mudkips

If you would like to explain to these people why the mudkips meme is not a reasonable addition to the article, then nobody can stop you from doing that on the user's talk page. But the discussion does not belong on the pokemon article page in question, because it is unconstructive. There has already been a lengthy discussion on the issue - as preserved in the talk archives - and there has been a strong consensus against adding such material. The header on the talk page was added to stop this discussion because it is unconstructive, and it was added for a reason. Any further discussion should be deleted, because by continuing it we are simply running around in circles, pointlessly arguging the same points which have no merit TheBilly (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is not to completely block it from addition - it is to block it from addition unless and until reliable sources appear. Sceptre's word - "[N]ot in a million years" - does not consensus make, and indeed most of us (myself included) who posted in defense of the article a priori the last archive requested - and failed to see - reliable sources. If the person who started the thread was obviously a 4channer or otherwise there to disrupt/troll, I would certainly remove it (as SIHULM's history has resulted in talk-page prots because of such trolling, a few death threats, and impersonation). However, I see absolutely no reason to censor legitimate discourse, provided it actually gets somewhere. And if the same thread keeps popping up, I will make an FAQ and point directly to it on the TP, a la Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The hell?...

No one ever agrees with me though... :) [1] Jmlk17 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I only picked you because Alison didn't respond ;) -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit... knew it was too good to be true. :P Jmlk17 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said about Super Bowl XL. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 11:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

That I saw, that I saw. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

my signature...

oh, no...Im sorry, i dont know to "images are forbidden in signature"...now, im removing to this image...*** Эɱ®εč¡κ ***^{and his friend} 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'Salright. I was just informing you. No worries, null persp. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Gamecube

You denied semi-protection. You said there were no edits since 2005. That is not true. Just take a look at the history, there was an edit less than 2 hours ago. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to what I saw on the history. I'll look again; this isn't the first time I've been a few seconds slow on my end. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong article. History says last edit was made in November of '05.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he actually wants Nintendo GameCube protected, if I may be pardoned for butting in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are excused for butting in.

I think part of it is Asher196 overusing the undo button, but there was sufficient vandalism to have it semi-protected.   jj137 ^♠ 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Username Concerns

Thanks for your concern regarding my username, "Awesomebitch".

As suggested, I checked out Wikipedia's username policy. It defines an offensive username as one that serves to "make harmonious editing difficult or impossible". "Awesomebitch" seems rather tame to be inflicting the emotional scarring that is necessary for this kind of damage.

I use the term "bitch" as empowering, rather than derogatory. This usage is pretty mainstream these days. (Bitch Magazine and Meredith Brook's song "Bitch" are good examples if you need them.) Used in this way, it can hardly be seen as a vulgarity. However, regardless of how you personally view the term, referring to myself as a bitch does not pose a threat to the community.

Wikipedia's username policy isn't there to censor grade-school style, but rather to prevent deliberate attempts at offense/sabotage, which this clearly isn't. There are countless articles inside Wikipedia itself that are substantially more offensive than the term "bitch". The Wikipedians who use Wikipedia enough to run across my username are resilient enough to not be emotionally disfigured by "Awesomebitch" and her wrath.

I'm sorry if my username hurt your feelings. Will you forgive me?

Let me know if you need any additional clarification.

Awesomebitch (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Empowering or not, the word can still be used in a rather harsh manner and you may find that users can tend to be very unscrupulous. Take it as you may, but I read it as a personal attack. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Councillors of Glen Eira

Hi, that ain't going to work b/c they are IP address and they are constantly changing and it tends to be the same person --CatonB (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, protection ain't going to work preemptively. Unless actual vandalism or BLP vios are going on, we can't prot. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

IP address vandalism Batesmethod article

Again vandalism in the batesmethod article by IP=address. The same party I assume. ( Ophthalmology ? ). Or an other party is doing everything to keep the quality of the article as low and unclear as possible. Attempts to discuss the changes have been made. Only fake arguments were given as you can read. I do not think semi protection is enough for this page. This article is making clear providing clear objective information about the batesmethod is not about giving clear referenced information it is about politics. Seeyou (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Even user Mastcell knows how to be a vandal ! :-) But he semi protected the article again so he is ... ? Seeyou (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about him, but threads like these aren't going to score you anything except close scrutiny of your actions. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And stop blind-reverting. I am not thrilled with your edits to Bates Method. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Can you explain why you are not thrilled with my edits ? Seeyou (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I am not thrilled by the edit of MastCell. Seeyou (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He's reverting to a version that has consensus. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He is wrong there is no consensus at all ! If Mastcell says there is consensus I am gone make cabal. Seeyou (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see you're the only one making those type of edits to the article. I've also read the talk page of Bates method, and that is a real horrorshow story. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrorshow is right. I'm afraid Seeyou is a single-purpose user. The single purpose being to push his/her POV on the Bates method and smear everybody disagreeing with him/her as a sockpuppet of me (Famousdog/AED/MastCell/etc...). Anything that criticises Seeyou's POV is a "fake argument" (see above) even though there's no such thing as a fake argument, only good arguments and bad arguments. Seeyou is obsessed with petty semantics ("educational program" vs. "system" or "unlearn" vs. "relearn") and any attempt to engage in a debate spirals out of control (see the many versions of "for the objective reader"). Just ignore him/her and edit the article however you see fit. Famousdog (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we even talking the same definition of horrorshow? In any case, I have already reviewed Seeyou's edits and note that, w/ very little exception, he is an SPA (and quickly turning into a disruptive one at that) and has quite a few ownership issues with the article at hand. I have the page watchlisted and note that several (more than half) of the Bates Method alleged "Tor" proxies were disproven as such by WP:OP. I am going to start warning for consensus breaches the next time he makes an edit in defiance of consensus, and if he keeps up, he will get an enforced vacation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get your obscure cultural reference there !-) Famousdog (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Username change and protection for Marnifrances

Thank you for your help. I have had constant vandalism for the last month or so and it is getting too hard to handle- I am never able to revert the vandalism due to "conflicting intermediate edits". I have blanked my page as you may have noticed. You will also see the people who have vandalised my page in my page history. Thank you for blocking the impersonator, and please protect my page for me. If I have any further problems, I will request a different username change. Thanks so much. Marnifrances (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also filed a request for checkuser; I think you're being targeted by Peterjohnbrennan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been targeted again, please check my history- it's a user called "A World of Our Own". Can I get my page fully protected? Maybe I will have to find another username. This is kind of getting ridiculous. Marnifrances (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

Personal attacks? I do not know what tree you are barking on, but I've only done minor edits to the Batman Returns article. I haven't even been here that much.V-Dash (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Melicans hit the nail. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No he did not. i have been silent as of late until you upped and threatened me for something that hasn't even happened.V-Dash (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright - I will level with you. A few days ago I saw Orange Boomerang (talk · contribs) revert some obvious personal attacks that I had assumed were recent ones - I later looked and saw that they had been on there for a while, and that nobody had removed them until now. I am not looking for any reasons to ban or block you, and in fact, I have cut you more slack than a Disputatious Deeble even deserves (and you cannot deny you are one - your userpage states that "[You] are always right").

Were it another admin unused to the situation with you, you probably would have received a block for that, amongst other things. However, I have been incredibly lenient to the point of almost-naïve with you, and decided to warn you against making such statements again rather than do as another admin would probably have done (given your unimpressive block log). Even that leniency is starting to wane because of your GFAQs friends coming in backed up by enough Tyranids to make a Sliver hive seem like the Seattle Supersonics, and you making the mistake of retorting in kind. My suggestion to you and to everyone at GFAQs, where all this bad blood pools, is to come to the bargaining table, have a schmoke-and-a-pancake, and come to terms. If you can't come to terms, then don't give him a damn cheeseburger. If I see any more combat between the two of you, my gloves will go off, I'll alert WP:AN/I and WP:AN, and I will pull out Loxodon Banhammers to ALL parties involved in the battle - You, PolluxFrost, "Wandering Hero", and any other Tediz you've irked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try to figure out what most of that says as I do not speak l33t or slang English. Good day sir...V-Dash (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bull. You can easily determine what I'm talking about from the above, if you actually took the time to read it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to interject in probably what isn't my business, but this already has been tried on GameFAQs with him. As you an see with his reply, any attempt to 'level down' with him and try to find some peace and understanding has been rejected by his part with such answers. He usually invokes wall of text or 'legible English' reasons (grammar, typing mistakes) to avoid having to answer to the point brought up, claiming innocence in every cast.

You can do a user check on me if you wish, I have no problems with that, I only talked once on V-Dash's page. I only been following his edits for a while, and I may be only stating the obvious here, but it has been useless on all points.

Yet I would be ready to talk with him if he let us the chance to do such. But since he is always right as he states himself, he makes it impossible to hold any sort of conversation with him. He has stated his opinions has facts, denies/ignores any proof against it, and simply states innocence under the guise it's only an opinion, and claiming other's opinions as bait.

There are many examples of this behavior such as here : http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=925329&topic=40656066 and here : http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=925329&topic=40571666 which displays his unwillingness to explain his opinion, as if everyone should share it and those that do not are wrong. Taken seperately Dash's messages seem innocent enough indeed, but taken as a whole it is easy to see that he has no desire for middle ground. Celedh (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You need not fear for yourself on-Wiki if you remain peaceable.

As for V-Dash, he's already on quite a few shitlists here, administrator ones at that, for running sockpuppets illegitimately, edit-warring, Fighting with PolluxFrost (Who is banned under the main account Dash Jr (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry (confirmation)), and personal attacks. For your sake, Celedh, I suggest you avoid any contact with him - the warning I gave to him above extends to anyone who pushes his buttons (intentionally or otherwise) - and find a few articles to edit. Maybe fix up the Pokémon articles or watch Super Smash Bros. (series) for unsourced additions? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

****list? Isn't cussing against Wikipedia rules Jeske? Not a good example to set if the admin's cussing a storm too. Besides, I saw some legible stuff in that, but the rest is in l33t. No one speaks l33t as legible English. Celedh, who are you?V-Dash (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case it's prudent, and I speak no leet.

I am currently filing a Request for Comment into this matter; I will notify you if the RfC is certified. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly wrong with saying "shit". V-Dash, it looks like you guys don't get along.. why not just let this matter drop and go edit some articles or something? Picking apart whatever Jeske says seems unlikely to improve the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No disagreements here.. I'm just wondering why Jeske's trying to pick on me despite me being quiet for a bit....21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Had you read any of the above MWoT, you would have known that it was about personal attacks that had been long-standing on your talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That was old Jeske, not something recent like you made it out to be.V-Dash (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are still personal attacks. The fact that they were fermenting a while does not change the fact they should not have been there in the first place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So you'll do anything to have me blocked? Nice try Jeske, but I'm not stupid. You popped onto my talked page and posted a vague warning, and you expect me to be all sugary about it?V-Dash (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted you blocked, I'd have blocked you. Instead, I warned you. Another admin would have likely assumed that the personal attacks had only just been added and blocked you. Again, if you'd read my statement above, you would have realized that. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the one where you posted in another langugage? And any other admin would've realized that someone undid that after I took it down ages ago where I was warned about it too....V-Dash (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave any further comment for your RfC. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mhm, sure....V-Dash (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused

I was confused by your recent message to V-Dash. Yeah, his behavior has been problematic sometimes. But, if you're going to leave a note complaining of something he did, it would be much more clear to include a diff of what exactly concerns you. Friday (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He just posted it all of a sudden....V-Dash (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Nn123645's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Bates method. The case is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#Harassment Notice regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rjd0060 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Pokémon (241-260). For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

hi! you might remember my name

i was on lollipop-3's talk page and it said you saw "her" on I love Entei's talk page. Well let me tell you that my name is what she had been trying to change it to because we happen to be sisters. You see she decided that she didnt want her old name so I told her she could use the name I use on all of my accounts on other websites. But when she got banned I took the name for myself. So I just wanted you to know that and not be suspicious of me beng her or anything. k?
PinkXjellocreature (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you take the path your sister ignored and start editing articles - she was banned for using Wikipedia as a social net (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Be aware, however, that unless you are using different computers and different routers, the both of you show up as one and the same on a CU. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper at 206.170.103.* returns

The semi-protect period ended for article Raiden Fighters. On January 2, 2008 at 14:12 Pacific Standard Time, this vandal returned to blatantly place the same misleading information he has been putting in this and other similar articles for months. I tried the Admins' noticeboard, but it fell on deaf ears since it was an anonymous dynamic IP. Any suggestions?

This is what I hate most about Wikipedia. Why allow vandalism when it can be prevented in the first place (by allowing only registered users to edit)? JudgeSpear (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because those same IP users also provide legitimate information (much more than they provide crap, I can tell you), and do not want to register an account for various reasons. However, he has not tried again for a bit; the article is still on my watchlist and I will protect it again if he keeps it up. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters 2 got hit once again by the IP hopper. While it's easy reverting these edits, it's annoying and a deliberate attempt to mislead. Should I try the Admin's noticeboard again? JudgeSpear (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You can try AN/I, but barring enough disruptive activity our hands are tied at RPP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Full-prot of 241-260

I'm not aware of what is generally considered enough vandalism to warrant full-prot, but four isolated acts of vandalism in four hours? I know of your bias against /b/ but it seems a bit unwarranted. (Not that the article sees much positive contributions lately anyways.) Coreycubed (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the vandalism was picking up, and the article had also been hit the day previous by autoconfirmeds. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lollipop-3

Since you requested the CU and I'm not really sure what to do, I let you handle it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for her to edit again; she's been silent since she posted on my TP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash

I'm becoming more concerned over your handling of the V-Dash matter. By arguing with him, you're becoming part of the problem. Any way I could convince you to just ignore him from now on? Friday (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way for me to ignore him. He's involved on the TP of one of the articles I work on, like or lump, and he's going to keep needling me because I blocked him for 3RR and engaged him in the D&D debate, which I have since dropped and forgotten (he, however, apparently has not). However, I'm not planning on posting on the AN/I thread any further; maybe he'll get tired of filing baseless complaints against me (that is the third straight thread (four if you count the use of sockpuppets) from him seeking sanctions against me). Likewise, I have been trying to disengage on the RfC talk page and have all but stopped posting on his talk page. Besides, even if I stopped, he'd just go right back to attacking GFAQs users and IPs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here You Go

Take a look at it Jeske.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR V-Dash (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. It's going to be laughed off the board because (a) I have not reverted more than 3 times, (b) you have not provided any diffs, and (c) I was removing an attack site. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

if you say so Couriano.V-Dash (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I reread it - it's utterly inactionable because it's my own TP. And be aware that 3RR admins look into both sides. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The person is right about sheik but i don't trust that web site or any other web site the only one i do trust is dojo but i dont know how the others will react to the picture shown,--DarkFierceDeityLink 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Request unprotection for Steve Hoffman

As is quite evident now no one is placing any input for the opposing side of the "controversy" argument for several weeks. The article should be unprotected to allow it to develop again. Sidar (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Famitsu at Brawl

For the record, though I'm worried about the storm of confirmation/rumor discussion that will result over the Sheik thing, Famitsu reviewing the game this early isn't actually surprising. The game is due out in only two weeks in Japan, and it's pretty common for reviewers to already have the final copy of the game in their hands that early. I know that was the case with Super Mario Galaxy. Arrowned (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I (and WP:PCP) went through the same shit with the 4th-generation Pokémon and Serebii. I'm not wholly comfortable with it, because it means the article gets a new layer of Motion Sensor Bombs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know the upcoming firestorm will be frustrating as all get out, and I'm not even starting to claim Famitsu's right or wrong on the Sheik matter. Their ability to have already reviewed the game certainly doesn't give anyone the excuse to use that as a claim for anything else. I just pray if Sheik is in the game that Sakurai hurries up and reveals the news to Dojo so we can end this. -_- Arrowned (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mudkipz FAQ

Just wanted to say that you did a really good job with that Mudkipz FAQ. It's nicely concise and straight to the point. Great job; hopefully that will disuade some of those additions to the article, as well as unnecessary discussions on the talk page every couple of days. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee, although I wish I had a bit more input on it before I posted it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Since you protected it a minute after I requested protection, could you note the request please? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

AH, sorry. You're too quick. I didnt think you saw it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah (what?). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* This is why I leave a 'Runnerspeak translation in my edit summaries whenever I make those edits... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha ;) - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Qwerty of Man and other users

Hello. This user has created several sock puppets. He has about a half-dozen removing templates from articles. S/he seems to create an account, make a few edits with it, and move on to another. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 01:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the reason I asked for a checkuser. I'll ask that the underlying IP also be blocked. In the meantime, could you tell me where he's striking now, if he still is? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he may have left, hopefully. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 01:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because I autoblocked his IP when I blocked JesseCortanno (talk · contribs). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A note on UP1340's name-change request

You might want to take note of the fact that the username change was requested by an anon. IP (presumably the same locked-out younger sibling mentioned on UP1340's page) rather than the actual user. Said IP falsified the user signature that went at the end of the request, and did the same thing on UP1340's talk page. I'm not a clerk or bureaucrat so I wasn't sure I could note that on the username change page myself.

I've been keeping an eye on this user's edits for a while now, ever since he blanked a page that I created. Hellbus (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no formal page where you sign up to be a clerk. You just do it. BTW, thanks for the info. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry

Didn't notice that you were online - just trying to fend them off until you got here, when I assumed you'd handle it. Tvoz |talk 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I only just got on; the IPs look to be the same as those on a checkuser report. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that, and it was looking like it might go on all night, so I thought temporary semi-protection was a good idea. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, from Jack

Thanks for semi on my talk page; not the first time, either. And thanks, too, for a lot of other help with the naughty boy. --Jack Merridew 05:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think, with as rapidly as he is making socks despite the autoblocks, he's using open proxies. I'd say go to WP:OP with a few of them; see what happens. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do there; will go and read it. I'm still looking for mischief since last I was on. I also have an ArbCom case to look at (TV, take 2). He could also be using a net of Zombie computers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe compromised computers show up as OPs? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You vandal you!

You can't make this shit up... :) Jmlk17 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, also, as people have been a bit unable to detect my sarcasm as of late for some reason... I claim sarcasm in the title section above! :) Jmlk17 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock declined; user is on a CU request. RBI. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... quite good advice my friend. :) Jmlk17 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE) Tag them as Grawps. Alison just returned her checkuser findings here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on... Gotta love Alison! Jmlk17 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman

Is it time for full protection already? The editors waited out the last protection and are back to their old ways. I'm on a semi-wikibreak, so don't have time to do much with it myself. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I started a request at WQA, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Steve_Hoffman, to try to get a neutral editor to introduce the editors at Talk:Steve Hoffman to the basic policies and guidelines that they need to know to properly contribute to article talk pages. I think it's important for these inexperienced editors to have another chance to learn AGF, CIVIL, TALK, CON, V, RS, and BLP before this goes to RfC. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time - only one side, the pro-controversy side, is coming to the talk page. The no-controversy side has actively ignored the talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The problem isn't that there are two sides. The problem is that the editors are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and are trying to get their personal viewpoints, obviously discussed at length in internet forums, put into the article. The no-controversy side hasn't been a part of any of the goings on since mid October, so now it's just a case of getting the current editors to follow policies and guidelines rather than fighting, or at least give them a chance to do so after being informed on how things work here. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. I've noticed that the only editors on the talk page are the ones lobbying for the inclusion of the "Controversy" section - the editors that have been removing the sections when it has been added haven't even come to the talk page to weigh in. A WQA isn't going to mean much if half the warriors aren't even bothering. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point - half the warriors aren't participating, so what can be done? All I want from the WQA is for a neutral editor to introduce everyone to some of the basics of Wikipedia that they desperately need to know at this point. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, but don't be surprised if, when the article is unprotected, edit-warring starts again. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So what next? We've said a million times that the 'others' aren't arguing their case? But some people don't trust the documented sources... so there is no solution to this at all. All that happens is this: either the controversy section gets put in or deleted... as some point an admin locks the page... the people who want the controversy section ask what the problem is... ronz replies but no-one who deleted the controversy sections do... ad infinitum. Kalowski (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I unprotected the page last night, so that improvements can be made on it per Shot info's concerns. I have stated that I have zero tolerance for edit-warring here and will block offending users. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding

Hi Jéské,

I was looking at WP:CHU on an unrelated matter and saw: Wikipedia:Changing username#Chason.deshotel → ChasonDeshotel and User talk:Chason.deshotel. Are you sure, when he said "since we're changing it anyway", he didn't mean "we" as in, "me and you people at WP:CHU"? Frankly, I can easily imagine using exactly that same phrasing to mean that, if I were in his situation. Since he said "I" a sentence earlier, I think it's possible you blocked someone over a misunderstanding. Not trying to make a big deal, but I'm just suggesting you take another look. "Be nice to newbies" and all that. --barneca (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. Goodnight (for me, anyway). --barneca (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked on the assumption of good faith. I tried to contact via email, but (s)he did not have an email address set. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rikara

Man, you are 'not popular. :P Jmlk17 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This ain't a popularity contest. If it was, PCP wouldn't be slugging it out over Bulbasaur. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Is there anything at all that can be done about that thing? Think we could take it to DRV and stand a chance of getting people to notice that the thing has no sources at all?Kww (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Given how quickly the AfD was closed, they're more likely to see the trees rather than the Tarrasque hiding amongst them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you delete this page that I accidentally created

I accidentally created Smashbrosboy/ssbuserbox. I had meant for it to be my user subpage but I forgot to add the User tag.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Was planning to move it instead, but I saw you'd already made the page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Hi thanks for looking into my request name change. I tried to do it more than once and messed it up. I want it to change from User:Rac fleming to User:Robert Fleming. Thanks for your help. Rac fleming (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: V-Dash

In the days shortly after V-Dash was blocked there was one user, Wandering Hero (who I'm sure you remember as V-Dash Game FAQs nemesis) who trolled the page (which I removed). With another (different) user endorsing the summary today, I was wondering if that page should be archived? I'm not sure if Request for Comments are generally archived or not, but I do know that generally only admins should close a page as an archived debate. Do you think the discussion should be closed and kept as an archive? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, but I won't be the one to do it as I was the one who started the RfC. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply; I'll ask another admin now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for fixing the block problem!--Mr Fink (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. Actually, that was the first time I've even touched a rangeblock. However, I can state that the situation that led to your autoblock is pretty bad; it's stalking and puppetry on a grand scale (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, lol! I know how complicated these situations can get, and thank you for your willingness to deal with an especially painful situation like this one! Hope I didn't seem worked up about it... had a WikiFriend get blocked on accident once and when the situation didn't get fixed quickly he never came back. Wanted to make sure that didn't happen here, and I'm glad an admin as competent as yourself was on the case! --JayHenry (t) 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to rangeblocks, I'm incompetent. I couldn't do one myself to save my soul. I merely modified Yamla's to anon only.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it worked, and that's what counts in life. I think.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly has Jack Merridew pissed off?

This seeems to come up quite a bit. HalfShadow (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has an impersonator (User:Senang Hati (impersonator)), and Gavin.collins (who is also getting abuse) has been adding (in my eyes, appropriate) cleanup tags to articles, earning him a stalker in Grawp (see the RFCU/Case link above). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Grawp. The human cockroach. How many socks does he have now? HalfShadow (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I lost count at about 50. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

Hi, I came across Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement while patrolling new pages. It appears to be a POV fork (especially in light of this edit), but I'm unfamiliar with the controversy. Would you care to take a look? Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee, chummer. Nominated it for AfD; the creator has a problem with the current consensus on Bates method. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your advice

Being an administrator, perhaps you can help with this issue. On the Advance Wars: Days of Ruin article, there is an ongoing a debate over whether or not the game is turn-based tactics or turn-based strategy. Is there anything that can be done to put an end to this relatively soon? Neither side will likely back off, and there have been one or two occasions of 3RR violations and possibly an edit war. I'm just unsure of where to go from here. I was involved with the debate at one point, but upon being warned of violating 3RR I bowed out. At this point, I just want the dispute resolved, no matter the decision. I would greatly appreciate any advice you could give to bring the matter to a speedy resolution. Comandante42 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Post at AN/I - one of the parties is an indefinitely-blocked user from the looks of it. As I'm not 100% certain (and won't be until the RFCU I filed comes back), I'm not going to try anything just yet. What I will do, however, is full-protect the article for a few days. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like you read my mind. The only reason I didn't notice you had already become aware of the situation was because I had to spend the past hour trying to fix my router. By the time I successfully got my message through, you had already posted on the talk page. Thanks for taking an interest, though, and sorry about the delayed message. Comandante42 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I'm taking interest is because V-Dash is indef-blocked, and as such his sockpuppets are to be blocked on sight as evaders. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, you may actually bring the dispute to a close. I was beginning to think that the issue would go on and on for weeks to come; it no longer matters to me how a resolution comes about, so long as one does. Whatever the original reason is, I appreciate your involvement nevertheless. I know it's a small issue, but even small headaches are draining to those who wind up with them. Comandante42 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I have one of the biggest small headaches in Wikipedia history. In any case, bring this up at AN/I - this looks like V-Dash evading a block and the admins there should know. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's over with at last. You've gotten rid of my headache (for now at least; DeathMark/V-Dash will definitely be back at some point, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's already gotten a new start on some other unfortunate article) and now we can move on to better things, all thanks to you. Comandante42 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, all the articles V-Dash has been edit-warring and making inane arguments on were/are Nintendo games. I'd keep your eyes on them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to seem paranoid, but Axzeuz has turned up on the AW:DoR talk page, and isn't making a whole lot of sense, user page created on 2nd Feb, only edits have been to the AW:DoR talk page. I'm getting a DeathMarkish vibe from him, though I'm probably violating WP:AGF by thinking so. Advice? Geoff B (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Axzeuz

Would you like me to keep on eye on this user's contributions, given the similarities between the user and V-Dash? MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes. I've already added him to the V-Dash II request and asked for an IP ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RFCU has confirmed it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a general thanks for defending wiki. It's more appreciated than you think. -- penubag  (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wyvern's Spur

Please explain 2 February allegation of sock attack on this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

Ooops...

...sorry! Helladios (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

'salright. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I replied at Wikipedia:Editor review/Solumeiras for you. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked about Lyndon LaRouche; THAT's the one I don't understand. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded further there. --Solumeiras (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now a full explanation is provided... --Solumeiras (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC) r

• Hopefully my views are now explained in full there, should you wish to read it. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Barrens of Doom and Despair

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Barrens of Doom and Despair, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Barrens of Doom and Despair. Deb (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceske...?

I think you're being framed...or...something.[2][3]—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's V-Dash. He's taken to making impersonator accounts. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And another.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this one to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/V-Dash; I suggest you do the same as they pop up. Is it just me, or does he attack each time I'm playing Conker? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MFD

Hello. Thanks for deleting User talk:EGEmedia. Like I said I should have speedied it. But, heck, just in case... :) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If a page looks like it needs to be dumped into a harbor with cement shoes, there's a good chance it needs to. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again

We've got another one... I've reported it to the RFCU. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Was just gonna do the same, but you beat me to it. [4] -- penubag  (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Looks like Urutapu beat me, actually. I wonder why it's only you that he impersonates? I know that he's targeted Sukecchi's talk page, but there are a lot of other people that dealt with him who he could impersonate too... MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, because Jeske's out to get him.
Or that's his mindset, anyway.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported the incident to WP:ANI, as Jeske advises at the top of this page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Isn't there such thing as an IP-ban? Forums do it…)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is, but I don't they're used that frequently on Wikipedia. Hey Jeske, just out of curiosity; were you playing Conker again while this was happening? MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not this time; I was playing Diablo II. As a side note, this takes the cake for "Fucking Incomprehensible Post". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is, but I recall somewhere that Jeske said somewhere that he couldn't Ip ban him...[5]-- penubag  (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

f I recall correctly, Alison said on the RFCU that these sockpuppets were all from disparate IP addresses, which would explain why no IP block was implemented. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that makes since, but each individual ip should still be blocked, or he could create as many socks as he wants. -- penubag  (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barring him really doing something very high on the bogus meter, it ain't happening. And, Urutapu, if I knew which IP(s) he attacked from I would have blocked them ACB when Friday indef'd V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Add User:EskeFouriano to the list. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

There is a projetc that is making pages about a videogame, an RPG. The point is that on wikipedia games should not be added on that extreme. There are many pages about mythical and fictional creatures with the dungeons & dragons tag. What i say is that games should only have one page, or maybe two but remarking the general subjects. why do u think you never see a full guide of videogames or lots of articles about a game. Imagine if all the articles had this. The articles on Wikipedia would double and there would be Imp (Dungeons & Dragons), Imp (runescape), Imp(dragonfable etc... about 100 times. and there would be a guide with tricks a guide with full info.Understand my point? I know that ur a sysop but thats what surprised me when i've noticed you were on the project. I consider deleting the project and advertising Wikipedia is NOT a Videogame's Cheat's, guides and trick page. Sinceresly --Zzubiri (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the project? Videogame cheats? BOZ (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not happening, and I'm going to look closely at Zzubiri's contribs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call - looks like he came in with some kind of agenda. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for him, what he calls "game guide" is no reason to speedy. Imp and hromatic Dragon have had their speedies declined. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Auril

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Auril, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Auril. Deb (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should see this

User:EskeFouriano says something you might not like. Maybe its that sockpuppet guy who keeps claiming to be your sockpuppet.Smashbrosboy (talk)

Damn it, V-Dash...he's driving my patience very thin. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sukecchi, can you report the sock to WP:ANI while I watch the contribs? I've already listed it in V-Dash's RFCU. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, Jeske was online. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't report it to An/I without checking the block log first; Placebo Effect has already thrown this one to Yahtzee's imps. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash's block log? I'd thought that only Sysop's could access that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The block log is public knowledge; cick on the "Block log" link at the top of the page in a user's contributions to see it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got a fan

VeskeJouriano (talk · contribs) Username hard blocked on sight. bibliomaniac15 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the above section. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Apparently he thinks you and I are one and the same.

So, a couple questions to determine our identities:

1. What is the favored class of the Lucario?
2. What is the name of my :L49 Druid on Diablo II?
3. What is my preferred Conker: Live and Reloaded class?

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to your questions (I hope that I'm supposed to answer them):

1. One that is never used
2. Vurtax
3. Uh... J2?

Questions for Jéské:

1. What is my least favourite U2 song?
2. What is the name of the novel I have been writing and revising for close to seven years?
3. What Pokemon ship do I support most?

MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "Vertigo (song)"
2. "It's Midnight In Montana and I can't get my $@%$ Out Of This Cow"
3. The S.S. Anne.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's Going On?

How do you know that it is V-Dash making all of these socks? If it is not too personal, umm why does V-Dash hate you so much?Smashbrosboy (talk)

V-Dash hates me because he thinks that I'm out to get him, and I know it is V-Dash because he has a distinctive editing style. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have checked all of his socks and all said something like Jeske sucks or I am smarter than Jeske.He has a bone to pick with you. Should I report it to you if I find a potential sock? Also how do you make the time come after your sig?Smashbrosboy (talk)

Don't use your mysig template. Sign like so: ~~~~. Doing so will place your signature (from your preferences page; I suggest you c&p the code from your mysig subpage into your signature field and mark it as raw code) with the date. As for V-Dash, report him to WP:AN/I, but check the block log of the suspect account first - there's a good chance, given how many radars V-Dash is on, that it's already been blocked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried that but there is too much code for that text box to handle.Smashbrosboy (talk)

Have you actually checked to see if the code extends the raw sig past the right end of the box? My sig is code-intensive itself; I have to highlight to see the whole thing. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this is the thing. It goes past the right end of the box obviously but I tried to paste the whole code earlier and all it did was cut it short in the middle. Try it yourself by cutting and pasting the link at User:Smashbrosboy/mysig. There is just too many characters.Smashbrosboy (talk)

0_o No wonder why! Your sig has five lines of text, almost!

My suggestion, then, is to append, after the mysig template, the following: ~~~~~ (note that there are five tildes). That appends the time and date without adding a name. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wondering if there was something for only the date and time! Smashbrosboy (talk)

Not what I meant. Add the tildes on the page you're editing after you type the template. Otherwise, the date and time will be static due to the template. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just learned that the hard way...Smashbrosboy (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. Live and learn... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Null persp?Smashbrosboy (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Null Persp: A slang expression meaning, "no problem," "all right", or "affirmative." From the archaic expression, "no sweat."

-Quote from Shadowrun and Cyberpunk Glossary, Jes Wulfsberg Nielsen -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox policy

I propose to create a new guideline which will prohibit users making nonsensical userboxes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And I predict that your policy will end up in the bin because no administrator will be willing to enforce it. Seriously, think about the ramifications of what you're doing here, and doubly think about how the community will respond to such a proposal. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to {{Proxyip2}}

I'm looking for input from recent Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies users regarding the above template. your input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies would be appreciated, if you have any preferences regarding the TOR link in the template. SkierRMH (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spy sappin' mah mudkipz!

Hey dude. You're lucky that you're able to play a game without worrying about t3h dramaz. I kept being called away from TF2 last night to sort out some drama. Will ^(talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could play TF2... my video card sucks. As such, I restrict my online playing to L&R, Diablo II, and whatever custom Dungeons & Dragons material I can eke out without twigging Viacom or Nintendo to its presence. And here's an interesting comic. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TF2 isn't really that graphic intensive either. Besides, I was playing Well, which isn't really that intensive for Engineer. Will ^(talk) 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My video card can't even support DirectX8. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Junk the doorstop at next opportunity. :) Will ^(talk) 20:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. Unfortunately, this is no less than my third card in this machine :_( -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Onikiri

Can you help me do something about Onikiri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? He insists on using "Hyouga". He's obviously just being belligerent, because I asked him to stop, only for him to do it again. And it all seems to stem from an exchange on Crateris Suikyō (note he is, for some reason, not pushing "Suikyou" which I find thoroughly confusing, because I'd think he'd be doing this page instead of Hyoga).

1. I change it back to proper Hepburn.
2. Just because he's the creator, he will so graciously go with my opinion.
3. Informing him of WP:OWN
4. ...then he blows up.
5. And Hyouga continues, of course.

—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it and have threatened that he will be blocked for disruption should he do it again. Unfortunately, I will also warn you - don't continue or else I will block you for disruption as well - you two are edit-warring. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So long as it's clear. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, um, so he's using an anonymous account now. Jesus.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Impersonator

I'm marginally aware you've had some harrassment recently, and that it had to do with V-dash, Dash Jr, or something. Anyway, this seemed a no-brainer, but I'm not sure if this is being tracked or reported anywhere. --barneca (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, saw the note at the top of your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash

I've noticed this V-Dash guy popping up a few times recently, messing with you and mass-tinkering with his old sockpuppets' userpages. I created User:V-Dash/protection, which cascade-protects all his old userpages - feel free to add any other you come across. :) krimpet✽ 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee, Krimpet. I'm getting pretty tired of this guy myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Drizzt Revert

Check out the discussion page on Drizzt, left you a comment there. Cheers! Drizzt Jamo 23:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash / Grawp

Hey-o, just thought I'd let you know, I've been looking at the edits of the sockpuppeteer called User:Grawp, and I'm seeing a lot of similarity between that account's sockpuppet edits and those of User:V-Dash. I suspect they're the same vandal. Just a heads-up, in case you haven't looked in that direction yet. --GoodDamon 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can guarantee you they aren't based on the fact that V-Dash had impersonators and several people who vouched for his behavior on GFAQs. Thank you, however, for keeping an eye out. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQs, lol

If you still need stuff for the FAQ you posted on my page about, I can fetch the original copypasta that followed the DA group. The picture of the group invite might still exist, but no promises on that. Muramasa itachi (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help for a form of history. In any case, the FAQ is posted here; feel free to add it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ur cool

I like how ya handle things really well.

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee muchly. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mudaliar, Sengunthar, Gatti Mudalis: Heavy POV pushing by Saedirof (talk · contribs) who is a sock of MarkPC (talk · contribs)

Hello Jeske,

Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive edits to a number of articles, specifically Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi (all 3 are related articles) by using multiple socks and open proxies. He was initially blocked by JodyB (talk · contribs), check [6]. MarkPC (talk · contribs) who was initially confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but later managed to escape by saying that he only edits Devadasi. But the account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],[14], [15] while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. These are all socks of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) (username same as article name) or Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check [16]. Request you to take action against Saedirof (talk · contribs) who has a history of pushing POV using socks. See his latest edits [17], [18], [19] where he has deleted multiple references.

Also note the strong similarity in sentence structure of Saedirof's edit-summary "reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user" [20] and MarkPC (talk · contribs)'s edit-summaries [21], [22]. Look at the way they both allege that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user before reverting. MarkPC (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs). This was confirmed but he escaped by saying he never edited anything other than Devadasi. In any case Saedirof (talk · contribs) must be banned for abusing using socks. See how he keeps blanking his talk page)[23], [24] where the info that he has abused using socks been clearly put by an admin JodyB (talk · contribs) [25] for using socks.

Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but MarkPC is not a sock as far as I know - CU false-positived on him. I will quote from the CU:

* Unlikely Upon review, MarkPC and Saedirof are probably not the same person. I've unblocked MarkPC. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. However, Saedirof is going to end up blocked if he continues calling you a sockpuppet/master. Lastly, all users are allowed to remove warnings and such that they have read and acknowledged from their talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I hve filed a suspected sock puppet request at [26]Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the most recent evidence(at 00:28, 27 February 2008) by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here[27] where he confirms both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the same ip location like a workplace. He very clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the thread, and I don't like what I'm seeing. I'm stuck between Tediz and SHC forces, where Saedirof and (possibly) MarkPC stand on one end and you with OPs stand on the other end. I have given all the info I can on the matter and wish not to entangle myself further. Any further posts by either of you to this page will be reverted. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 08:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Youonlylivetwice is undergoing a checkuser

Hello Jeske, may I bring to your kind attention about checkuser on Youonlylivetwice (talk · contribs). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mudaliar

He has been a strong supporter of edits from open proxies.

Is it possible to take some action on Youonlylivetwice (talk · contribs) as he is vandalizing my user page [28] apart from reverting many articles to the the versions which have no relevance and removing valid proofs. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Saedirof (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saedirof (talk · contribs) is lying blatantly. The check user was over and I was found to be unrelated. However, Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been falsely accusing me of being a banned editor and edit-warring in the same articles whereas a quick review of his user and talk page would reveal that he was found to be using multiple socks to push POV and was temporarily banned. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saedirof is on his last legs. Any more accusations from him and the only thing he'll be able to edit for a while is his talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari

Thanks for asking about this on my talk page. I'm not directly involved with that AfD, but your offer to close it and open a new AfD to have a better shot at getting a consensus not tainted by sockpuppets seems like a good idea. Sadly, though, there seem to be numerous sockpuppet accounts involved with that person, and the more I look, the more I continue to find. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the old and relisted the new, adding to AfD right now. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)