User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 8

—

Newtouch Article

Regarding the deleted article Newtouch, you said those companies were not written by employees of those companies; they were written by volunteer editors who were able to demonstrate the service providers' notability. But can you be more specific to explain to me how do you know the editor is a volunteer not from the company inside and how does the editor demonstrate the notability? by what?...thx...220.248.17.158 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor establishes notability by providing reliable, third-party sources that demonstrate that the subject of the article possesses notability (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). And how do we know the editor isn't employed by the company? Because practically all company employees tend to run afoul of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest very quickly and are blocked for it - You are *far* from the first to be blocked for working PR for your company, and if you were the last, the heat death of the universe would be very near. Without writing specifically what mistakes a conflicted editor makes, since they're vast and it would take me a lot of time to address (and usually not very satisfactorily), most of the more experienced editors here can detect these mistakes - of which the biggest indicators are an unencyclopedic tone and a lack of sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that VanceInfo appears to be watched by experienced editors ([1]); Bleum less so, but it doesn't appear to be much of a piece whatsoever.

LOL...OK I got it. So what if I find an authoritative,third-party,volunteer editor who can prove the notability with an article lack of unencyclopedic tone,can I get the pass of wiki paradise?-Derek Cheng (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust me when I say that even that may not secure an article's survival. If a user finds an article that fails speedy-deletion criteria is still wanting, he can "prod" the article ("prod" meaning Proposed deletion) or take it to AfD. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock?

I saw the note you left on User talk:89.129.54.112. I didn't see the autoblock here. Is there somewhere else I should check in the future? Thanks! TNXMan 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The initial unblock request was an autoblock-removal request; hence I assumed he'd been caught in an autoblock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I only saw the standard unblock request. Strange that toolserver didn't pick up the autoblock. Thanks! TNXMan 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for refactoring

My first post to the EE mailing list arbcom was made on September 22: "I received a link to the web site containing the email list on Thursday [that is, September 17, 2009] and read some of them." [2] and went on to ask for evidence presentation guidelines. You wrote of me on Sep 23rd: " Given that his first post here was to ask for a copy of the archive..." [3] Your statement about my first post is inaccurate, and I ask that you refactor it. Novickas (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the refactor. Since you wonder where I came from - I was a party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes - many of the same people. I've not been as active since then, but I was taken aback by the appearance of what turned out to be members of the mailing list group at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) and Talk:Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga. They were, per the mailing list archive, recruited to support the proposed name changes. Not as serious as some of the other issues there, which is why I probably won't be participating further. Novickas (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey Jeske, periodically I visit your fine establishment for really just one purpose: please check out the recent contributions of User:68.101.104.146, if you have a moment. I hadn't heard from the IP's band in a while, but they were back to perform on my user page fresh after a three-month block. Woohoo! Anyway, whatever you decide, thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked for two quarters. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN#Request for official unblock

Hi, that thread might interest you, since it concerns an issue with respect to which you have taken action.  Sandstein  21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Marwat

Hello there. I noticed that you indefinitely fully protected this page in August. I was wondering if you think it would be all right to unprotect it now. Regards, NW (Talk) 22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, given as one side's been banned for unrelated issues. Apologies for the delay, I had no 'Net access 'till a few hours ago. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Availablity,

Could I get your opinion on something?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

please leave me alone

with your previous comments of "slot off, fragface" and "chummer, shut the frag up", along with your other threats, i want to make it clear that i want you to stay away from me. ignore the urge to comment on me, and definitely stay away from my talk page. i am literally 100% freaked out by your language/aggression towards me. leave me the hell alone. do not respond to this. just rollback it or whatever. but leave me alone. if i do anything that requires admin intervention, i am sure one of the other thousands of admins will figure it out. you need to stay away from me because your behavior/obsession with me makes me extremely uncomfortable. i hope this request was polite/firm enough so that you understand and accept my request. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I am 100% disgusted with your behavior towards other users, myself included. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sorry!

Sorry about that!!! Looks like I had a brain fart... Would you like me to release the block on Vanisheduser5965 , or are you just planning to file the name change request? Just say the word. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already filed it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy for your help . I'm leaving soon and will scramble my password , I just want to make sure that my page isn't vandalized by other editors . You were the only one who was helpful in this sea of bullies and so I thank you again. Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:C. Jackson Grayson

It looks like Talk:C. Jackson Grayson was deleted in error. The article exists. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It was... Fixed now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User:Walaa_adel

Hi Jeremy, I've been asked by User:Walaa adel to contact you about you blocking her, I know she wasn't replying to your messages but this was because she's new to Wikipedia, I am her guide here...

we're originally from the Arabic Wikipedia, and we are working on a translations project using Google's new Translator's Toolkit, that is made to specially translate Wikipedia Articles... and in this process, we were copying the pages into our namespaces, so the translated output gets published automatically in our namespaces in our Wikipedia, where we finish the articles and revise them before publishing them to the main namespace...

so... the blocked user is one of our translators, and their part is mainly about using the toolkit, while the wikifying process comes back to us, as far as I know, copying the articles to our namespaces doesn't contract with the GFDL that all Wikimedia projects currently work under. specially that the User did NOT do any action that should be considered as vandalism, or attacking other users.. they just didn't reply to your messages. which isn't even enough to delete the page... aside from blocking him... please refer to WP:AGF

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me... and if you please unblock the user because they cannot continue their work.. Koraiem (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, en.wiki is also under CC-By-SA, which requires that the edit history be maintained; however, consensus is that translation efforts can be straight c&p moves, last I knew. I didn't block access to her talk page and had it watchlisted in case an explanation was forthcoming. I will unblock her and undelete every article I deleted. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user and undeleted every article copied. Send my apologies to her. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! :).. of course all these copies will be deleted after we're done translating them.. and the original edit history in the original article will be intact... Thanks Again! Koraiem (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it .

Just email oversight-lATlists.wikimedia.org . I'm writing the request now. Thanks.Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration, and good luck. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Smash Bros Brawl - this game is new and still being sold

That is reason alone not to have that article on the main page - it makes Wikipedia look like an advertisement site. Since the game is new, then the designers might even release expansion packs or whatever in the near future (which could change the content of the article). The article isn't even that well written either. It's obvious that a bunch of Nintendo fanbois just voted their favorite game onto the main page.--70.254.46.126 (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Brawl is over a year old; most games, Brawl included, don't have a sell life of past six months. Also, please note that we have had featured articles for several businesses and products, and Wikipedia was not seen as an ad agency for them. Why the hell is it different for a video game? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just comments like "This is a great game. Why shouldn't it be on the front page?" that irritate me. I guess it isn't my decision though. And as for 4chan being featured on the front page, I never even knew it was there and I wouldn't have voted for it. Cheers.--81.222.64.215 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that I did not have anything to do with the article's Featured Article push, and that "This is a great game" has no bearing on whether or not it's worthy for the front page; see WP:Featured article criteria. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I Am Not Sbs108

See My Talk Page about this issue PSSS108 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Adminship day

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Jéské Couriano/Archive 8 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Vatsan34 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Jarlaxle IP socks

I've asked at WP:ANI how best to deal with this one. Any ideas? Please reply there. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Leuko's talk page.
Message added 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To IPs

Chaotic Goods do not follow the direct or indirect orders of a Chaotic Evil person. Also, how can I be lawful if I'd sooner disrespect the law where it's a hindrance to the greater good? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hi. I notice you reverted my edit to the Ip's talk page. I know I am not that editor but the user who removed the unblock request had no right to do that and I have warned them accordingly. Thank you.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually we simply remove unblock requests that are simply trolling, as that one was. He was in his rights to remove it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it was a sensless unblock request, but it should really be up to the admins to remove unblock requests.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That user (Either way) is an admin. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh whoops. Well, he was an INVOLVED admin and there is evidence to suggest that he baited that IP into lashing outand getting himself/herself blocked which is not acceptable.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help I would be, not knowing the situation there and dealing with Bugs Bunny-style threats here. Mayhaps bring it up at AN/I? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would help at all. Hopefully my warning will be enough.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good thing if it does. :D -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point?  Chzz  ►  07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

oops

Ah, I didn't see the previous unprotection. Sorry about that. Ironically, that's the same thing I did to the vandal that decided to grace my talk page a few days ago. —Dark 05:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not ironically. Grawp's idiotic minions have decided to harass someone else. —Dark 05:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Where? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to them losing interest in vandalising my talk page. —Dark 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect your page?

I know I won't be able to edit your page but at least it will stop your rush of vandals here.--122.57.91.165 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Either (α) the 4chan thread feeding this will be off /b/ soon enough or (β) they'll lose interest and go annoy Scientology. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Best to wait for them to lose interest. /b/ is not known for their attention span or their intelligence. —Dark 05:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a link to the edit

Which edit are you referring to (please provide diff) THanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see ... we probably saw the same vandalism, and hit the button at the same time. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Note the timestamps on this diff (same time left/right) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

G'day Jeske :-)

Just pootling round the wiki and saw the really rather nasty threats on MB's page - I thought I'd pop in because I also noticed that you blocked the IP for one month - is that because the IP is likely to be dynamic, so longer would punish the wrong person? - I ask, because I would presume that generally you'd go 'forever' block when related to something like that... hope you're good regardless... and good on you for dealing with such genuinely horrible stuff..... Privatemusings (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask me about /b/tards at this point. I'm too busy laughing at them trying to brute-force in their edits thru the AF. :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

heh! - does the '/b' thing mean that this is sort of organised at 4chan? - I don't really know much about that subculture, but it's a weird one, for sure! also, AF == abuse filter, right? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

No worries - there are worse things that can happen. Ottava is even now viewing it as evidence that I am somehow 'suspicious' and am being investigated by someone (not sure who - personally I hope it's Mulder). Ah well, all part of life's rich tapestry, and I understand from the notes I see flying around that you are suffering worse on-Wiki problems at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "problem"; "substitute to reality TV", maybe, but "problem" no. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Jéské Couriano's Day!

(fluffy and happy horses*** removed by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)}) 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 • 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, nein. I don't like the idea of a day dedicated to me, especially when I'm one of /b/'s most common targets. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How was I supposed to know about WP:RFO?

I find your edit, removing my post to ANI about the problem at the Gosselin article a bit offensive. Not only do you post in all-caps (universally recognized as shouting in type), but you lecture me about a page I had no idea existed. A simple -- and polite -- note on my talkpage would have been nice. If I hadn't just checked back in the ANI history, I still wouldn't know about WP:RFO, and even your shouting would have been for naught. My thought was that -- what with the high traffic of administrators available at ANI -- that the oversight would come much quicker that way. Additionally, is the guy who boasted that he had taken a "screenshot" blocked yet? Has he been checkusered? If not, that should be done immediately. UA 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please hear me out. It is SOP to remove requests that would be best handled by Oversighters off AN/I specifically because of the nature of the edits Oversight works with (i.e. nonpersonal public information). In fact, the header at the top of AN/I specifically says, "DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone." (boldface and caps in original.)

As for CU'ing, unless you have any proof of wrongdoing by that account, the CUs are not going to run a check because CheckUser (the tool) is very invasive of privacy. i.e. Checkusers will not run a check on gut suspicion, hard evidence is needed. Also, it's worthless if that account's his only one or if he constantly hops IPs. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Marwat article

I believe you have protected the Marwat article because of an edit war between two members. One of them is banned, while the other one is inactive for the past month and half. It would be a good idea to remove the protection from the page so other Wikipedians can clean up the article or add/remove information. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

If there's no evidence of LoW resuming there, I'll unprot. Going to check right now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done and apologies for the protracted length of time. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Furry?

(userbox) Like a bear? lol. A8UDI 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No... I tend to be more effeminate, which isn't a bear trait. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of my messages to your talk page

You have three times reverted my messages to your talk page on an administrative matter, [4] [5] [6] and you then issued me a 3RR warning. [7] Is this consistent with administrative policy? I understand the desire for keeping discussions about a topic to a single place; however, that does not seem to me to be a rationale for removing talk page messages directed to an administrator which pose the administrator specific questions regarding the prosecution of administrative duties. I'm looking forward to resolving this with you rather than posting to an incidents noticeboard, which would seem to be the next step. Robert K S (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove messages from their talk page free from 3RR. Constantly reposting them is a form of harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on, this isn't a harassment issue. I was asking you questions pertinent to administrative actions, and you were covering them up. Robert K S (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not covering them up, I was removing them because you were pursuing the same issue on TenPoundHammer's page. Now, I must respectfully ask you to stop posting to my talk page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Chummer? :)

Cute word. Reminds me of my boarding school days. ;) Crafty (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This ain't the first time someone's asked about my use of Shadowrun lingo... -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Not at all what I was thinking. Back in mah school-days "chummer" was usually preceded by "bum". More evidence that I'm just a dirty minded schoolboy. ;) As you were! Crafty (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind me...

Don't mind me... just fundraising. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Slot off! :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha :) — Pretzels ^Hii! 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Laura DiDio

I've refactored my own comment for clarity. Might I ask that you do the same? I feel that there is an important distinction to be made as the original quote is not mine and your comment is open to mis-interpretation. I think the refactoring makes it moot anyhow but I wanted you to know my intentions were for the best in order to bring awareness to the situation at hand, and I believe the way it is presented now is probably the most optimal (unless you disagree?) JBsupreme (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is; gimme a sec and I'll tweak my response. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 10:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing...

Is there anything we can do regarding this disgusting edit? even legally? Thanks, Tom A8UDI 12:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from block the user and report him to the cops in his area? Bupkus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 12:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Baldfreak's unblock

Hi Jeremy, just wanted to drop you a note. When you were unblocking Baldfreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), you apparently accidentally skipped the 'unblock the user' step and moved right along to 'check for autoblocks' step. ;)

I've unblocked them, so I hope that was actually what was intended on your part and I didn't misstep. Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had unblocked them. Ah, well; I'll be over to apologize. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you realize?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Calling someone "chummer," which you often do, is considered extremely rude by many. I have no idea if you intend to insult people discreetly, but it is unbecoming for an administrator to use a term with a common pejorative meeting. ("Chummer" is commonly a way to refer to someone as being homosexual in a derogatory fashion.) 75.100.83.178 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chummer means friend in the context I use it. Do your damn research before you blast me for using a term. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware it has alternative meanings. However, given the double entendre, it might be appropriate for you to stop using it, particularly given your penchant for sarcasm. It is far from apparent which meaning you intend. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if I've already explained it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking? Do you honestly imagine users are familiar with your archived talk pages? In lieu of that, how many people are familiar with random words made up for a role-playing game? Given that in many real world communities this word is equivalent to calling someone a "fag," I'll again suggest that you refrain from using it. You are not playing Shadowrun when you are acting in the role of an administrator on Wikipedia. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lighten up brother. I'm a fag and I don't find JC's use of the term "chummer" to be a problem. You're really getting this all out of proportion. Crafty (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do find its use offensive, which is why I brought this up on his talk page. I wonder if new users may feel attacked both by this word and his tendency towards sarcasm. Is leaving a comment on his talk page "getting this all out of proportion?" I don't think so. More generally, Jéské's use of Shadowspeak simply seems inappropriate to me in this forum. This is the English language Wikipedia after all. Cheers. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Shadowspeak isn't another language; it's English-language slang. I think you're making an issue just to make an issue. :| -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I am not "making an issue just to make an issue." I find the word offensive, as will other some other people who don't play your role-playing game and have no idea you are employing an obscure subdialect of English derived from a relatively unknown RPG. You are an admin and your actions are held to a higher standard. If a Wikipedia user civilly brings something to your attention, perhaps it would better not to simply dismiss me as a troublemaker. I gather from earlier comments that you are being harassed by 4chan users. I'm very sorry to hear this but I have no affiliation with them nor am I writing these comments for fun. I assumed you would be open to discussing this. If everyone here employed lexicons and unusual subdialects from their personal favorite obscure sources, communication would grind to a halt. All the more so if some of these words are offensive in mainstream English. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call an RPG with four video game adaptations "relatively unknown". I'm permitted to use slang if I wish, especially if I've explained it (both early in my time here - see Archive 1 - and in #Chummer? :) above). In fact, I did not realize the term had any meaning in English until long after I started using it (which goes to show you how often I read Urban Dictionary). What do you want me to do, wikilink every single instance of the word? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 18:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped for more civil and productive discourse with an administrator. Since you asked, what I would like you to do is stick to Standard English and not use jargon, surely unknown by the vast majority of contributors here, that derives from a game you play that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't see this as an unreasonable expectation or request. 75.100.83.178 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Jargon is unknown by the rest of Wikipedia editors? isn't that kinda like saying moles fly? In any case, I'm not going to stop using "chummer"; you have not persuaded me against it. If you really want me to stop it, drop a line at ANI or somesuch. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jéské Couriano. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Responded there. Now archiving this bit.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regardless of what the term means as you see it, you should realize that its use can be interpreted as patronizing, just as repeatedly calling someone "buddy" or "pal" can be construed as patronizing, and your use of the term even with those who have asked you not to use it, as you have done with me, is callous, haughty, demeaning, and uncivil. The now-archived ANI on the above issue represents a typical failing of the process. Rather than examining the complaint against you, the discussion was directed against the complainer and quickly closed. Robert K S (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrites' unblock request

Thanks for denying the unblock. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me, thank Rewrites. ;) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha...no matter, the block sticks, and it seems the sock doesn't want to go away, as a rather fraudulent SPI filed today against me turns out. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MSN

Whoops, didn't realize you were on just now. Your window was hiding behind another and I never saw it blink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

File:AVMeiyappan young.jpg

Please restore the good copy of File:File:AVMeiyappan young.jpg. Better yet, I think it's eligible to be uploaded to the Commons, so putting it there will work fine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What revision's the "good" copy? Sorry, but am a little under the weather. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

NM, someone else got it. sorry. -Jeremy ^{(v-_-v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Chummer"

I wonder how that word comes across? First time I saw it used, it seemed vaguely derisive; is there a context for it I might be unaware of? (like a popular culture meme I've somehow missed...) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye, chummer, it's another term for friend. I've also covered this above. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I think you might want to reconsider the use of the term; I know it's a term for friend the way you're using it, but it comes across as derisive, especially since you seem to use it with people begging to be unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I sort of have to agree - I can see that you don't mean it in a derogatory sense, but given the wide variety of people here it can come across that way. Anyway, just a friendly suggestion! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki talk contribs wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:MisterWiki/Happy Holidays}} to your friends' talk pages.

MisterWiki talk contribs 01:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Too late, already ruined. *sigh* -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback II

Hello, Jéské Couriano. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
Message added 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CU completed MuZemike 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, appending numeral for disambiguation. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Id be happy to

However, i take it that this policy is only enforced on some but not others like Ohnoitsjamie who are apparently allowed to run amok adding nonsense to pages and including insults in edit comments? When I am no longer insulted I will respond in kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.187.191 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch your words. Vowing to resume disruption is grounds for a preventative block. If you have such an issue with him, take it up at WP:ANI or WP:RFC. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Death treat? Ban treat.

Saying it only for your understanding of such statements. This statement is symmetric to articles removal from Wikipedia. Removing members of Wikipedia from it editing called blocking or "ban". Thank you for your attention, sorry, that reading this message took your time, you can delete if for sure without any objections from me.·Carn !? 08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Deleting" an editor is construed more often than not as a threat of harm, not a ban threat (since accounts can't be deleted whatsoever). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alison22

Before being blocked, this user made at least a thousand minor edits (removing a template from redirects). Do you happen to know if these were bad and need to be rolled back? Also, I'm curious how a user only 4 days old could even do this... as far as I know this can only have been possible with AWB, which the user shouldn't have permission for, or if the account is an unflagged bot account. (Maybe it's possible with Twinkle, I don't really know how that all works.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only came in at the tail end of this; you might wanna talk with the established editors who contributed on his talk page. Sorry, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I mistakenly thought you were the one who blocked her. I'll as the blocking admin. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Null perspiration, and happy holidays. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

just so you know

At our university campus we have many internet users. Not everyone has a wirless connection, some people just use each others.

If "he" makes another account then, he will end up getting an innocent ip banned (everyone knows each others WEP password), you will not get rid of him am telling you, he is one of my best friends and i know him well.he will just use somone elses internet connection--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

also, do you have the power to un-ban the Ip adress of our universities or big organizations?--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the abuse gets so severe that we have to keep it perennially blocked, we will unfortunately have to. However, registered accounts can be granted autoblock immunity, allowing them to ignore autoblocks, IP blocks, and rangeblocks on their underlying IP. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I would take at face value the protestation from Mirroryou1 that he or she is not Misconceptions2. The writing styles of these two accounts are very similar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Keep an eye on User talk:Darkedge3, there's been some developments since it's been on OTRS. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it earlier; I have the talk page watchlisted. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind unblock. I shall not be so confrontational in future. I will try to learn. Think of the children (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. My only regret is that I did not get to it sooner. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wight (Dungeons & Dragons)

I'm just commenting in passing, but doesn't it technically fall under the "fiction" aspect of death? HalfShadow 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression the WP deals with the process of death, not undeath. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; just an outside opinion. HalfShadow 00:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Xenu?

I confess I am not versed with this? Can you gie me a short breakdown? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Xenu would be a central figure in Scientology - so central, in fact, the the Church of Scientology actively attempts to suppress info concerning him. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, no I don't think everything should be censored. However rape is a very hard issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another can use *your* justification - that it's offensive - to cause a slippery slope effect, chummer. That's the issue with most nowadays - present bliss from an action that will ultimately haunt them. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a unique vocabulary, Chummer? The Xenu info is actually quite interesting. So I am not distorting what you mean, how am I creating a slippery Slope" Do you mean that in infringing on one image others can be removed on the basis of the one? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By having that image removed because it is offensive, you would in effect be saying that *any* image can be removed solely because it is offensive, nevermind the reasons the image is in the article. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed....I did make a mention we should at least make a caption that allows this image to be concealed unless a link was pushed to access it. I can understand that form of logic though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but this sort of thing has been proposed in the past, and it was pretty much rejected out of hand. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we know there is a problem....and we can't do anything to fix it? It's not even my intention to soapbox a issue, I know technically speaking I am but damn. How twisted is this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual recommendation made to users who object to images is to alter their browser settings to mask the image. (A show/hide box as you're suggesting has been rejected on Muhammad, another article with image disputes - see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically, a wasted battle. It's fucked up but literally nothing that can be changed about it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's your view, than it is so for you. In my view, it's 50% MediaWiki ability, 50% responsibility as parents. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said there was a problem. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I didn't mean you said it. I said we when obviously it is a smaller group of editors that believe this way. It's similar to somone posting a pov tag and the person who authored that version saying it's Nuetral Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Except for core Wikipedia policy, most policy is not set in stone. It might be worthwhile going to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to discuss modifications to WP:NOTCENSORED. But from experience, I don't think you have much hope, this sort of thing has been discussed to death and consensus has always been to not restrict or facilitate the restriction of relevant content in any way. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk

Help with talk page

I was wondering if you could give me some pointers about how to set up a talk page that looks like everyone elses. Is there a link to somewhere? ThanksBullyBulldawg (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What sort of talk page are we meaning here? If a user talk page, I wouldn't suggest tinkering with it too much until you get more used to the vagaries and intricacies of MediaWiki syntax. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you. :) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. *sigh* I only wish he weren't so deadset on pursuing one avenue and one only. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop Harassment Now

I consider this to be a bad faith edit, a personal attack, and harassment. I believe you should apologize, if of course you have any dignity left, which I doubt you do. I do not think the people like you deserve to be administrators. Please have a nice day, and do not forget to ask for CU--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And I consider the edit that prompted that remark the same, as would most other editors, let alone administrators. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I guess you have no dignity left. Anyway I'd like to give you an advise: before you'll ever again will threat somebody with CU please do learn your subject, and learn it well just not to look stupid as you do now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know well enough about CU, but if you are indeed Israelbeach I doubt a CU would have found anything due to age. Hence, I filed an AN/I instead. Now get off my talk page and stay off; you're trolling. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Streisand

Thanks for the reminder. I somehow missed the "dangerous personal information" in the header of wp:ani in my haste. LeadSongDog come howl 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bulbasaur

Silly people moved the Bulbasaur article to the project space with all the history of the article and talk page with it. The article's history was moved back to Bulbasaur, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur still needs to be moved to the correct place. The problem is, Talk:Bulbasaur has history and some talk on it. Could you switch the two pages, put the Milestones banner and "Possible refs" section on the real page, and then delete it? Feel free to do an easier way. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you will, can you delete the two revisions I made to Meowth on 1 September 2009 and then the (redirect) revision on WP:POKE/Meowth. After that it can be history merged.(silly conflicting histories...) Thanks for your help! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. User:JamieS93 did it instead. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf arbitration case

I notice that this case was closed: 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should it go in this weeks arbitation report, or next weeks?

Murray Langton (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel National News/Israel News Agency

duh! all that wasted research and now I feel like a damned fool. I still have to go strike out my comments. Thanks for the note on my talk! Stellarkid (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bleep-bloop-blip -bloppp bleep bloo!

Translated from droid: Why did you protect? –xeno^talk 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hint: Yotsuba. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume I do, that you will unprotect after a short while. –xeno^talk 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Assumption is correct, yours. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort Albert

Hi Jeske,

I've got it watchlisted and was just wondering if there was any reason you've protected the article Fort Albert? It isn't much of a vandal magnet (at all actually) and I tend to find articles like this benefit from IPs who add interesting info that I can frequently find sources for later. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See the section above. I will unprot after the /b/ thread dies. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, sorry I don't follow. Could you elaborate? Ranger Steve (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not go into detail. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I think I follow now. Good luck, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm following the thread too. -- Pakaran 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They saw what you did there. (Took long enough). Jarkeld (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Did they angry? –xeno^talk 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's very little heat thus far. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot how nsfw that board is. –xeno^talk 23:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how long this thread's managed to last. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(RI) I know; I saw, and I'm working on it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And all done. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have un-out-dented this thread, for great justice. –xeno^talk 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

and epic lulz. xeno, I would just downloaded Adblock Plus and block all images from that site with a filter. That way, you won't ever unwittingly see child porn. NW (Talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Omirocksthisworld

Looking at his response after you declined his unblock, and without looking at anything else I admit, my feeling is that 31 hours is overkill. In fact, if his response after the unblock request had been in the unblock request, I might have granted it. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See here. Essentially I've reduced the block. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Thank you for taking on the Arbitration beat for the Signpost.

I took the liberty of slightly copyediting your description of one of the cases this week to ensure that it read as neutral. I hope this is all right, but please feel free to revert or edit further if you disagree or have any questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Chances are good I may incorporate your changes into the draft on my computer right now. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball1015

"No, really, I'm not socking!! Oh, okay then - here's a bunch of passwords :)" ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 22:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just then, the cops stepped into the clearing, and the Spamshiners knew they were busted. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - I remember that one! - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-01/Arbitration report

Per my comment there, note that the motion has carried. I doubt you will miss it somehow, but I may as well make sure :p. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the Noticeboard watchlisted; so I'm not likely to miss it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

haha, I feel silly now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the Arb beat since I was in a good position to do it anyhow. :) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Assumption of bad faith, bulling and personal attacks by administrator Jéské Couriano and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Put a statement in, but, seriously, Mbz1, you're hunting for a sanction here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed mention about Sbs101 from my statement. I did not realize that my statement should not exceed 500 words, so now I made it shorter. If you'd like to, you may adjust your own statement accordingly. I also changed the title of this post in accordance with the new title of the request. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yale University

I notcied that you have protected the above page indefinably - do you mind if I ask why ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will answer with a haiku:

In darkness of net

One must test his sanity so as

to understand /b/. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In English ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Have the link above instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will unprotect the article myself when it is safe to do so (bearing in mind WP:BEANS). I suggest you read this; it'll enlighten you as to why I protted it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 11:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am still unsure of why you protected it or marked it 'indefinite' - Just because there is some chat on a non related internet site - wait till anything happens and then block it and block it for a week, 2 or three but not 'indefinite' Codf1977 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to spell is out for you? THERE IS A RAID THREAD ON /B/. YALE WAS SUGGESTED AS A TARGET. ONCE THE RAID THREAD 404s I WILL UNPROTECT EVERY ARTICLE I PROTECTED. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes spelling it was exactly what was needed - I asked a simple question, all you needed to do was answer it in a simple non-complicated way - you are an admin you should have realised that. I think the indefinite block is WRONG Codf1977 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Were I to make it definite the few /b/ users who have brains would exploit it. See WP:BEANS. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 11:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All articles unprotected. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Filter 287

Hey Jeske. I've been doing some thinking about filter 287 and almost made a WP:BOLD change to it to remove all article checks, but didn't because... well, just because. The condition limit hit rate is getting severe and letting some things through that should have been caught. I'm not saying your filter is causing the problem, just that yours seems to be one that can be easily optimized. I'd like to (1) remove the sysop check and (2) remove all article checks, because in all cases, none of those phrases seem valid. This would significantly reduce the average number of conditions which is brought up pretty far by the "or" operations thrown in. Thoughts? Feel free to respond here or on IRC, whatever's easier. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it. Please double-check it when you get a chance. I don't expect you to understand the second condition, so just trust me that's right. I do want you to take a look at the first condition -- that wasn't there before. (I am intentionally being ambiguous here because it's a private filter and don't want to release details unnecessarily -- if you're confused feel free to contact me on IRC.) Anyway, I hope the first condition's ok, because it will help efficiency quite a bit. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfa of new account

See bottom of AN/I for the discussion I've started.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 08:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw it there first; hence my pointed question there. I'm not sure if this is a couple of friends completely misunderstanding Wikipedia policy or something more sinister; I'm assuming it's the former. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 08:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Two questions

1. May I please ask you how and why the link to my talk page got here?
2. Are you Wikipedian from HELL!?

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1)No idea (I never heard of that forum until just now, when you brought it up); 2)Yes. However, that account's not been used for several months, unless someone else has gotten my pass there. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil

IMO the second part of this edit summary was not necessary and offensive not only to the one it was addressed to, but to all people with developmental disabilities. May I please ask you to remain civil to everybody including disruptive users?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a developmental disability he has (and I have one, so don't patronize me about them); it's more like paranoia that should be best addressed by seeing a psychiatrist, not trying to convince us that his X-Files fantasy is indeed reality with an endless parade of sockpuppets. Wikipedia is not his therapist. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

May I please ask you to review wp:civil? Please read: "Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often written in haste, particularly if there is an edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation". There's no single instance in the policy, which justifies incivility and personal attacks to any user. Besides, if you are to continue to use such languages with the disruptive users, sooner or later you will use the same language with absolutely innocent users, as you've done with me. So, it is better never to use such language at all. Period.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you have claimed before (in your failed Arbitration case, I believe), that you have no personal issues with Jéské. May I ask why, then, you seem to be tracking every one of his edits so closely? That kind of behaviour is not usually encouraged on Wikipedia, regardless of what run-ins you may have had with the editor before. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

MelicansMatkin, So far I "tracked" only one of the administrator edit. If you read my "failed arbitration case" closely you would have known that the purpose of my reqest was to prevent other people suffering from incivility, buliing and harassement by administator Jéské Couriano. I have nothing against him personallly, but I believe all administrators should be civil. Of course administrator Jéské Couriano has the right to seek "dispute resolution, process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.", or block me, if he believes my behavior is disrupting.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with Messiah Foundation International and helping out with the IP address. Since its protected now, the admin protecting it suggested that we seek comments from other editors to stop the edit warring for good. I think this will be the best way to do it, and hopefully you wont have to deal with reports about edit warring on the article anymore. Thanks again! -Omi(☺) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil (2)

Just yesterday I pointed out to you your edit summary and asked you to review wp:civil and today here we go again. Here is a quote from wp:civil "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks." Jeremy, I know you might think otherwise, but I am doing what I am doing not only for the users, who might get offended by your comments/edit summaries, but also for you. Please believe me, you will feel so much better, when you stop talking as you do now, and nobody would complain to you any more. I hope you'd agree with me that you have a problem that should be taken care of. I believe you should block yourself for few minutes or for a day with the block reason "PA and harassment". It would be a good medicine, and it will help you to avoid using such language in the future. Besides it will show to everybody that you try to be fair and mean business.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jéské - I think Mbz1 has a fair point here. Chill out a bit with the edit summaries - it's not all that long ago that we had to oversight one or two of yours. WP:CIVIL applies to us all, especially admins. Don't go blocking yourself tho' - please :) Just step back and try to not let socking and vandalism get so personal - Alison ^❤ 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just about had it with this one, however, especially his X-Files fantasies. Not to be mean, but I'd sooner face /b/tards anyday or make direct mental contact with a post-EarthBound Giygas rather than play Whack-a-Crackberry-Vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy - you're waaay off the mark here right now. First off, he's a she, okay? Secondly, you completely missed her point. You're a long-term vandal fighter and you do a damn good job at it, but you're clearly battle-weary here and need to just chill a bit. You know I know what it's like - we've all been there at some point, right? All I'm saying is that I've had to mention this more and more over the last month & you're not getting much better, from what I can see here. Please step back and try to be less snarky? - Alison ^❤ 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Mbz1, Alison. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

She, likely, doesn't know that. And yes, everything else I said still stands :| - Alison ^❤ 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Mbz1 has taken to watching all of Jéské's contributions, I think it's fair enough to say that she is more than aware that an edit summary on the page of a vandal he is blocking who she has never had contact with is not made in reference to her, Alison. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I was referring to his "just about had it with this" comment and not his original vandal one - Alison ^❤ 00:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(intended)Jéské, I'd like to ask you a question please. Do you believe that all users, and administrators in particular, should be civil to anybody, and I mean anybody, and under any circumstances? Do you believe that, if you personally attack a sock and a vandal or a blocked user or a disruptive user, or even a user, who personally attacked you , you drag yourself to his/her level, instead of showing to him/her how to behave using your own behavior as an example, and maybe in 1 case out of 100 make a better user out of that sock and vandal? Thanks in advance for responding my questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a chance to better a user, Mbz1, I usually take it if they're reasonable. If we're talking someone irredeemable, parley with them is like trying to persuade a wobbly fence to stay upright. JI Hawkins is an irredeemable case. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still obliged to remain civil at all times, Jeremy. That's why you're getting a name amongst the vandals as a Lolcow, and which is why they keep coming back for more. Seriously! You need to keep your cool and be civil at all times - Alison ^❤ 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was because I GETblocked /b/ so often. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, you are very angry, and probably rightly so, with vandals and socks. Yet I hope you'd agree with me, that, if you're to continue to use such language with them as often as you do now, this language will get into your habit, and you will use it with everybody else as well?--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, Mbz1, if you knew as much of my history as Alison or jpgordon does, you'd realize why I am far more curt with vandals (especially sockpuppeteers) than I am with other users. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jeremy -- please? You're one of our very, very best vandal fighters. Until very recently, every time I've seen your name, I've had great confidence that a good block has been made, that a rotten piece of vandalism has been eradicated, that a rotten piece of vandal has been extirpated. But at the moment you're heading for annoyance greater than any vandals could possibly cause you, and it's getting hard for the rest of us to look the other way. I'm not going to lecture you -- I'm going to beg you to use some better-than-common sense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've just ran that SPI case and picked up one or two others. But this edit - what did you hope to achieve with that other than stirring up trouble? C'mon - please don't do that - Alison ^❤ 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 had asked JI Hawkins to stop disrupting Wikipedia. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Her kindness and civility are laudable, though. And to a guy who just said; ""I'm not JI Hawkins you stupid sumbitch. I've never even heard of him. Ever stop to think that my edits weren't vandalism, but indisputable facts? Ever think of that you prick?" - ugh! It's a difficult job for all, tho' - Alison ^❤ 07:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first unblock request where he's hurled profanities and insults at admins. Many of the ones from early January are of that stripe. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bleargh! Yeah :/ Still, RBI is the way to go, though, difficult as it may be - Alison ^❤ 07:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially given how determined this guy is to ram this conspiracy theory down our throats. I'm at a loss to say anything that won't make me come across as being an ass-shell (especially given the singlemindedness this editor shows), so I've not got much to say. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the message you left at my talk page and followed the link. I absolutely agree with you that such language is hard to take, yet IMO it's part of your job to deal with users like those ones. The user is clearly very disruptive and wants attention. Do not give him that attention with long edit summaries, do what should be done like delete his contributions, block him, but otherwise just ignore him. IMO a user like that JI Hawkins will only enjoy your long edit summaries because he would treat them as he's succeed in irritating you. I know me leaving message at the user's talk page was probably silly, yet I am not sure I "got snubbed". He probably never seen my message simply because he has no need to log in as JI Hawkins. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be RBI'ing. However, this vandal isn't motivated by personal attention, rather attention to his X-Files fantasy, which I've been denying him. I saw a filtered edit he made on a new account; he actually *blasted*, not praised, me for rollbacking all his conspiracy bull. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(intended)Well, I have thought for some time about JI Hawkins and his socks. I've seen that user:Agent J 99at least tried to make some positive contributions (the stub he has started was not removed so far). Maybe next time you'll see another sock of him try to talk to him. I know it is very hard to impossible, but I would have still tried. BTW about "conspiracy theories". When you wrote about me "Troll-o-meter is thru the roof; maybe I should ask for a CU to see if this is Israelbeach" wasn't this a conspiracy theory on its own? I mean you thought that I am a sleeping sock of user:Israelbeach, a sock, who for almost three years behaved, and then suddenly with a single edit blown up all his hard earned cover. Wasn't this a wildest conspiracy theory one could have came up with :) ? Have you ever seen such "sleeping socks"? If you did, I would be very interested to hear the story. I like such stories :) Later you ended up requesting SPI on me and the socks of User:Pickbothmanlol, the very socks, whose only contributions were ... to attack me. I do not know User:Pickbothmanlol, but I wonder, if he has ever created any socks, who were attacking each other? I'd like to get response for this question, please. So, you see, Jeremy, you also have some conspiracy theories on your own.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1) The reason I never filed an SPI against you in re Israelbeach is because there would be nothing there - Israelbeach, as far as I am aware, is too stale to check (CUs only hold such data for a brief amount of time). 2) Pickbothmanlol's MO is to target users currently under discussion at AN/I - a criterion he'd never match as he's banned. 3) Yes, I have seen such sleepers - Before he drove me batty last year, I was mainly focused on stemming Grawp's vandalism; part of his MO was to create sleeper socks specifically to perform disruptive (and in many cases, harassing and thus oversighted) pagemoves. *flicks tail* —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words you requested SPI on me versus socks of Pickbothmanlol only because you knew SPI on me versus Israelbeach will produce no results! Jéské, SPI you've requested on me should have never been requested, it was a harassment in its worst. I could not have been Grawp because none of my edits was disruptive in any way,I could not have been Pickbothmanlol because his socks never targeted his own socks, I could not have been Israelbeach because his English is perfect, mine is far from that, not to mention many other factors. To tell you the truth I am jealous to Israelbeach. He is a captain in Israeli Defense Forces. He has fought for his people in a real life not only here on Wikipedia. I wish I were able to say the same about myself. Jéské, I will not bother you with this post anymore. I hope from now on you'd be civil, would avoid PA,would assume good faith instead of coming up with wild conspiracy theories. If it is the case, I will not show up at your talk page anymore.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you asked if I'd ever seen sleeper socks. You did not specify in regards to you in your question. Also, the SPI filed in your name was primarily because I wasn't as sure of PBML's MO then as I am now, and based on the behavior I reasonably (and foolishly) assumed his accounts were yours. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 - what Jéské is trying to say, as only he can :), is that he completely goofed up on the SPI report for a number of reasons. He screwed up bigtime and he's really sorry it happened. He's learning from the situation and would like to apologize to you for dragging you into this mess in the first place. Right, Jéské? - Alison ^❤ 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aye; in fact I'd already apologized to her, unfortunately I'm not certain she saw it as her talk page was deleted shortly thereafter. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison! If I could think about something good that came out of my experiences it is that I met some very nice and very kind people, who I did not know before, the people, who were able to forgive me for what I have done (you know what I am talking about), and to help me feel better. You are one of them, Alison! Jéské, I've missed your apology. Would you care to repeat it, if of course you feel comfortable doing so? Right now the most important thing is not an apology of course, but rather that you have understood that no matter who you're talking to you should assume a good faith and remain civil. If after all of that you'd become a better administrator, I will know that my suffering did not go in vain.Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any and all suffering I've put you thru as a result of the accusation at the spam-blacklist, the An/I thread, and the incautiously-worded SPI. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jéské. It was really nice of you to repeat the apology second time because I've missed it the first time around! It was also nice of you so patiently listen to my lectures :) I'm sure that from now on you will always "lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in your interactions with others" like all good, fair and kind administrators should. Thanks again.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeske is a lolcow, now :o —Dark 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Per request

See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse#Sanders_conspiracy_vandal. I didn't have a ton of content to say about him, it's quite a simple case, but feel free to add anything you feel is appropriate there. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I added something I've noticed from recent sockpuppets' behavior. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent protections

Howdy Jeske, what's with your recent spate of semiprotections? Some of those articles have barely been touched, and one of them is today's FA. I'm sure you have a good reason, but to the casual observer it isn't readily apparent, so I'd appreciate some clarification. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What's a hotbed for trolls and worships a small green-haired girl named Yotsuba? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, but they haven't actually done anything yet. I think it might be an overreaction, but if you think it's not, I trust your judgement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a raid thread I was actively monitoring. Because there's a tendency to "roll" a title until it reaches the GET number, I protted it immediately once I saw it; it's unprotected now. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like everything has been resolved now. Thanks for your efforts. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems. In the future, if you notice me doing mass-protections, assume that a /b/ raid thread or two is active and know that I'll unprotect all the affected articles once the thread(s) 404. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - Jeremy, you should put a banner on your userpage, "This user is a /B/tard" - I think you've earned it at this stage :) - Alison ^❤ 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not associate myself with a bunch of sheep with all the intelligence of garrotxa, thanks. :| —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trading card game

Seeing that you were actively involved with this project, I just wanted to communicate to you that I'm seeking to revive the project and get on with the rules. A poll has been started to help choose a set of rules. Any comments, help, whatever,... would be appreciated. Hopefully we'll be able to get some progress on the developement of the game, which has been halted for some time. Thanks, ♠TomasBat 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaceghostguy

Just to give you a heads up that I've asked for a second opinion from another CU on that user, as I too have doubts as to connection between User:Spaceghostguy and the Kentucky Fried Vandal. I also have doubts on behavioral evidence with that sock mentioned as well, but we might as well run a check (assuming a CU is willing). –MuZemike 07:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Alison for a second opinion after I emailed the original CU and challenged his findings; he's not entirely certain SGG's not collateral. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ninetales Are the New Mudkips!

Just to let you know. Thank 4chan for this one. :P -WarthogDemon 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice4d they were trying for 200M last night while I was skimming it for Wikiraep threads.

Ninetails fails as a forced meme and is rapidly going nowhere. I notice that ED deleted the article earlier today - Alison ^❤ 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoi, Alison, while you're on, could you check the latest JI Hawkins sock? I just whacked another one and am adding it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep -  Done - Alison ^❤ 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here

File:Jeremy Hanson in Tengwar Sindarin.png

Hope you like Elvish script ;) Alison ^❤ 05:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more partial to Kacheeks and Pikachu. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it's hard to believe he uploaded his RL name in Tengwar to Commons. Wonder how long before he asks for it to be removed? - Alison ^❤ 05:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My guess is when Alara block starts, retroactive. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems someone (him?) was watching, as it was nominated for deletion as a copyright violation. I reverted since simple text (even Tengwar) isn't copyrightable. Good try, though! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me; he's been rather anal about getting this stuff out of view. Just makes him even more a fragging hypocrite given the fact he's attempted to out others. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I LOL'd. Not only that, but it was originally released under the GFDL and you can't simply revoke that. While I'm all in favour of on-line privacy, etc - this guy is on his own. Not only did he repeatedly publish his own dox, he's been fooling around with my own juust a few days back. So he can go to hell - Alison ^❤ 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should consider becoming a person of no account. The only thing that will let him regain his anonymity at this point is by dropping off the face of the net for a long while. No 4chan threads, no Wikipedia, no nothing.

That'll never happen. I believe he enjoys the dramaz too much to let a small thing like loss of anonymity get in the way. In any case, I've watchlisted both images, so I'll catch any *ahem* inappropriate changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If he loves the drama too much to let the loss of anonymity be a problem, then why does he give a damn about getting it off? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And nice catch on the deletion requests, Huntster! If he's constantly targeting them, just let me know and I'll prot them over there (I'm a Commons admin) His own dox are one of the few things he actually does care about, that and his google presence. Unfortunately, one of the ED sysops (not me!) just posted his RL name over there the other day, too - Alison ^❤ 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

J, I'm sure he has some interest in getting his name removed, but part of me thinks he does it just to screw with us. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I heavily doubt that given that he's had on-wiki conniption fits about his RL ID being at WP:LTA/Grawp. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock

Hi. Since you are aware of my case (User talk:Ashot Arzumanyan), I'd like to kindly ask you to unblock also my account on Commons. Thank you for your time. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 09:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Commons - I can't do anything for you over there. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon

Next time you move an article, please remember to move its talk page as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did... Sorry. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)}

Why the explanation of decline of unblock?

Hi~! No offence to you but why the need to explain? I mean it's quite self evident that Truthseeker is very clear about his own actions but yet conducts it on purpose with wilful intent to harass or in an attempt to out another editor. As noted by another editor, we can extend so much AGF but there has got to be a limit somewhere. Per point number 3 of WP:OWB, note that I subscribe to WP:DENY & WP:RBI. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of other admins who haven't seen the AN/I thread or the blocklog. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, cheers~! v^_^v --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kacheek faces are easy to make. :P v^_^v —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal/sock

Hey Jeske, you just denied a request to unblock User:Carlos Colombia. I had left the blocking admin, Gogo Dodo, a note that perhaps you are interested in also, at User_talk:Gogo_Dodo#Recent_block. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but...

Could you review the edit summary at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transblacksite? User:Narutolovehinata5 has closed an AfD claiming to be you. I agree with the close but I'm concerned at the procedural irregularities involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh never mind! Sorry, they weren't claiming to be you, they were noting that you speedily deleted the article! Okay, sorry. Please ignore, and feel free to delete this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

He shouldn't be closing his own AfDs, but he isn't impersonating me. He just neglected to sign; I've tagged the edit as unsigned. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined

Awesome. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I need some levity in between Hawkins socks. All work and no play makes Jéské a homicidal Bori. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unblock of Collectonian

Hi. I've noted your unblock and would appreciate a comment by you as to why you did not consult me first or raise the matter at ANI, as required per WP:BP#Block reviews. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There seemed to be a growing consensus on that page that the block on Collectonian fed the other user you blocked for the same incident. An AN/I discussion or discussion with you on-wiki would have been antithetical given the circumstance. (I apologize for not dropping you a line, but I wasn't caffeinated when I did the unblock and spaced on it.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but it is my understanding that community consensus can validly form only on community fora, not on user talk pages where a user's friends (or opponents, as the case may be) are likely to be over-represented. That is why the blocking policy refers to ANI. At any rate, I disagree with this unblock rationale; while I agree with the DENY essay, I believe that it is exactly by taking into account the troll's reaction to the block of Collectonian that you give him recognition and take his bait. It would be better to ignore the troll and assess Collectonian's conduct solely on its own merits.

I take it, then, that you will not object if your own future blocks are undone without discussion or comment, and that you assume responsibility for any editwarring that might ensue as a result of your unblock.  Sandstein  22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never objected to my blocks being undone provided there is a legitimate reason behind the unblock and the user being unblocked isn't a banned user. And I am well aware of the nature of the block; if edit-warring resumes I won't hesitate to reblock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Karunyan back and at it again

First, thank you for reviewing the block on me earlier and unblocking me. Karunyan's block has expired, and his first edits were to once again begin trolling and reverting the Blood+ character list (which another editor had reverted back to the pre-edit war state), with a summary of "not trolling anymore"[8], He also is now going around and doing the same to Jack Merridew's edits, who was the one who restored the Blood+ list, including doing one with a summary of "Using a troll puppet to deal with a troll, huh? Admirable.."[9][10] He seems determined to continue his previous behavior, and continues referring to himself as a troll. I left a note at ANI [11]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell

Just a courtesy note to tell you I have re-enabled talk page access for User:James dalton bell as he has contacted OTRS and needs to make comments about Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article with which he has issues. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Birthday Committee Question

Hi! Since you are in the Birthday Committee, I am not sure if you can answer this question, but if you can, please do: Do I have to get something discussed to add my name to the calendar for the birthdays, or can I just add it? --Hadger 16:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just add it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! --Hadger 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Too many references

I see your point, especially after looking at the other edit made by that editor at the village pump. Perhaps you could have a look at the history of the editor's user page, and revert my changes if necessary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He didn't edit for a couple months before this vandalism spree (last legit edit appears to be Feb 01, IINM), so I'd wager that he wasn't compromised in November. I'll revert. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks, and my apologies for being overzealous. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't count your chickens yet; he's got an unblock request up claiming he's not compromised and arguing that "gay boner" is a legit redirect page for homo erectus. :( —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<--I'm not counting anything on a Friday afternoon, especially not drinks. Cosmo? ;) Drmies (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, this does not strike me as a very serious edit, and it's from November 2009, amidst a brief flurry of edits that also produces that weird user page. Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, cocktail hour. Have fun mopping, Drmies (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Drat

I was hoping that you were referring to the Scott Joplin version. mechamind90 16:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad news

[12] –MuZemike 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware JI Hawkins is there and gave whom appears to be the head honcho over there a heads up. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...

...that my joke fell flat. But please see WP:CIV as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate jokes like that, especially since it did not come across as sarcastic. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI blues

Hello Jeremy, could you take a look at WP:ANI#Continued removal of maintenance templates while there is an ongoing discussion? I need a reliable third party opinion, thanks and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No can do, too stressed out due to my main computer being borked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit of your ArbCom report in The Signpost

Hi, thanks for these reports: they are most helpful. I've rather heavily edited this week's. I wonder whether you might consider changing the wording thus in subsequent reports. Please let me know if there are issues.

Cheers Tony (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Brucejenner sock

Arkhunter (talk · contribs) seems to be another pretty obvious sock, since you bagged the last one (and he reverts at AIV), I just thought I'd pass it on. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Bagged and added to SPI. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. Calling me a DOT is!!

Show some damned decency and quit looking the other way to official and false Wikipedia racism in its so called encyclopedia. Lulaq (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, or else you will be blocked for your behavior. You did personally attack the IP, and now you're attacking me. I'm not endorsing the edit the IP made, in fact I would have reverted it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling you insensitive to racial bigotry is not an attack. It's an opinion and a very valid one, and you're attempting to censor Wikipedia with your admin powers. I'm an Indian and I do not take kindly to someone calling me a dot. I did not attack the IP and you have conveniently deleted what I said. Lulaq (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, chummer, it's the textbook definition of a personal attack. I suggest you calm down, and soon. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not your "chummer". Quit talking down to me. Lulaq (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quit accusing me of racism. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling you insensitive to racial bigotry that stayed on a Wikipedia article for 5 whole days and probably would have stayed a lot longer had I not been interested in the closing times of bars around the DC area. Lulaq (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think everyone watches every page on Wikipedia? It's not uncommon for vandalism on little-watched pages to go unnoticed for a long while; that doesn't mean Wikipedia is racist. If anything, that means it's understaffed! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, I think your interaction with Lulaq on this page was unnecessarily rude. I hope you can try to use more empathy in this kind of situation in the future. Once this one got to where it was, bringing it to ANI was reasonable, and hopefully the discussion there will calm things down, but it's always preferable to avoid getting upset people even more upset than they were in the first place. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the post that triggered this was actually a very reasonably-worded personal attack warning. I wasn't expecting the response I got whatsoever. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bright side is you're more experienced now and can do better next time ;). The uw-npa4im template is explicitly threatening and completely unsympathetic, which is just about certain to get an angry person angrier, not what you want. I think it's best to avoid using templates at all in such situations. It's better to just write in English in a human-to-human style, expressing some understanding for the problem while asking the person to cool it. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Help! I'm being oppressed!

Thanks--Talk:Dan Boyle (ice hockey). ;) Drmies (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching that page since it seems to keep getting filter-tripping edits, and the needling of you by those IPs smacks of an attempt to make a new meme. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking out for your fellow editors. Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Given how much shit I've seen and personally taken from the trolls, any little bit I can do helps. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)