User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 5

Hello Josh

Hello Josh,

Please stop harassing me and do not protect my talkpage. If I had not mentioned you in that conversation, or your friend Ryulong (or rather your friendship), then you would never have done such a thing. Remember, you were the one who started it this time, by using your protection tool, and this is not harassment to tell you that this is abuse of the protection tool. Don't pick on me because I am not armed with a friend like you to stick up for me when someone criticizes me. Jonas Rand (and yes this is my real name and I am never referred to Ionas in real life) 68.96.209.19 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Little boy, you threatened my well-being, in real life. You don't get two chances to do that. Now begone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Accor19

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template. I've added the template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

re User:Bigsaidlover

I see you declined a block request by the above editor. As the blocking admin I made this comment regarding the unblock request. I wonder if you might glance over it again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• So unblock him, then -- it's always the blocking admin's prerogative, I would think. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of converts to Judaism

How, if at all, would one say on the talk page of the above article that SkyWriter doesn't seem to be coming back, given he has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats? John Carter (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let it be a few days. An indef for legal threats is easily resolved by retracting the threats. I don't know any of details of this block, though (I'm not on OTRS); it's interesting though that both proponents of keeping the redlinks in found themselves indefinitely blocked within hours of each other, for unrelated reasons. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

nudge

Meaningless and pathetic really, but just so you know, [1]--Jac16888^Talk 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we should inform his elementary school. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet

I note that you had blocked the following accounts for sockpuppetry: Special:Contributions/JustOneMoreQuestion, Special:Contributions/IfYouDontMind, Special:Contributions/Goesquack. Do you think that Special:Contributions/Canvasback may be related, given that the account started editing shortly after you blocked those three accounts, and has similar interest in the various "X-Y relations" AfDs? Also compare this edit with this edit. DHowell (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, User:Nishkid64 already blocked this account. DHowell (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone disagrees with you :-)

See User:Markacohen. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An ANI report has been raised about him: [2]. Not by me, I hasten to add. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreasonable Removal of Link

Dear Jpgordon:

On 9 April, I was looking at the Wikipedia page on The Uncounted Enemy, a 1982 CBS documentary. I knew where the complete transcript of the documentary was available online, on a web page at Texas Tech University, so I added a link to that web page. On 26 April you deleted that link. Could you please explain why? Were you somehow under the impression that the web page at Texas Tech was mine, and that my linking to it was in violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies? Ed Moise (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is possible that when removing the many links you inserted to your own web pages, I removed one that wasn't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• I have just removed my bibliography link from Gulf of Tonkin Incident. If you check on this, please refrain from removing the link I put there to an NSA web page (not my own), or the references to the book I wrote on the incident (I was not the one who put those references in the article). Ed Moise (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no interest in removing links that aren't links you have inserted to your own sites. I do think you understand the difference. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice little sockfarm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Koudelka&action=history

Can you take a look and possibly get rid of some IPs? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just one IP. Blocked for a while (again). Didn't find any obvious strays. Probably a kindergarten. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Crusades

Per User:Jpgordon#Ironically you claim to have a crusade against (useless / overused to the point of uselessness) adverbs. However, have you considered the possibility that you are simply allergic to the letter i at the beginning of words?

Regards, Bongomatic 09:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I remember flipping the switches on a friend's IMSAI 8080 (we didn't have one ourselves—instead we had a Z80-based NorthStar Horizon). Not the most efficient way to program, especially for the error-prone.

• Perhaps just i at the beginning of adverbs? Or proverbs? (Why isn't that a part of speech too?) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics

Curious about the numbers beside your name here. Is this correct? If so, why the departure from the norm? Durova^Charge! 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "reason" field? Just laziness, really; they're all pretty much the same thing (suspicion of abuse of multiple accounts), almost all stemming from RFU. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It leaves me a bit concerned, though. Considering Thatcher's parting words when he resigned, doesn't that leave you a bit concerned as well? Even if every one of your own checks actually was valid, it would be darned near impossible to remember the cause behind each of over 2000 incompletely documented checks. And if someone else deliberately chose to abuse the checkuser privilege, wouldn't your habits make it easier to conceal bad checks in the pile? Durova^Charge! 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That's why (a) I've stopped doing it that way; and (b) the code's likely to be tweaked to make it impossible to do it that way. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Die-sel Tankwart

Just out of curiosity, what did you tell him? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He said, "Tremble before the vandals." I said, "Apologies; we don't tremble." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't tremble even a little bit? You are very brave.  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I said "we". As a group. Myself, I was scared shirtless. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got your back, yo. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer Article

Dear Josh, Hoary suggested I contacted you as we have a dispute about the notability of the photographer Errol Sawyer. You seem to have a good taste in collecting photographs. On top of that Errol and your cousin have something in common: they are both photographed by Diane Arbus. This fact amongst others was already taken out of Errol's article as some editors seem to be determined that Errol Sawyer is not notable. I would really appreciate your honest opinion and if possible help.1027E (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly inclined to jump into a discussion where accusations of racism are being freely and improperly flung about. Were the atmosphere less toxic, I might consider lending a hand. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you feel that you can better the situation? As an European I am sincerely amazed by the way Americans treat their African American inheritance. The Schomburg Library of Culture does not even have the money to digitize their archives. I edited racism out for you.1027E (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since you're the one inserting the accusations of racism in the first place - and continuing it here -- I really don't know what I can do to better the tone there. Further, we tend to look askance at people promoting material about their own family members; it makes it hard, if not impossible, to maintain Wikipedia's required neutral point of view. I don't get to write about my brother, who is a quite well known musician in his own not very well known niche, regardless of how much or why I think he's being neglected. Mr. Sawyer's family does not get to write about Mr. Sawyer. So: we can look at Wikipedia's threshold of notability for artists and photographers and see if he reaches this threshold, and that's what people have been doing on the article talk page. The photography history project might be helpful, as you have noted. But until you tone down the rhetoric, you're just making everyone else unnecessarily angry at you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Josh, I am only trying to do the right thing and I am sorry that you feel personally offended by just mentioning the facts. Yes, I have asked for assistance already in the Wiki project of History of Photography. The amazing thing is that a lot of photographers in this project have references that are less accurate than the one of Errol Sawyer. Errol Sawyer is according DGG reaching the demands of notability. He has his work in important museum collections and important collectors have bought his work. There is an important article written about him in the most prestigious Dutch Photography Magazine: PF Magazine. On top of that he was the only African- American photographer who worked on top level in Paris in the 70s and he is the only African-American photographer in Amsterdam on top level. But the editors I am dealing want all the references digitally accessible within a split second. So they cannot find PF Magazine as their server is slow and they don't accept the reference of Schomburg Library of Black Culture as their archives are not digitized yet. As an architect/ building engineer who is also writing a thesis, I find this hilarious but what can I do? I ask help of older editors like you. There has also been a problem with an editor who would not accept that Errol sawyer discovered Christie Brinkley as a model in April, 1973. He, Mbineri, kept taking this out of her article and did not want to accept the reference of the book of Michael Gross. Now it is in finally. He also takes away all the time African in front of American before Errol Sawyer 's name. (Obama calls himself an African-American too). Now he is slaughtering Errol Sawyer's article again and he did put all the tags which is not reasonable at all. As you have collected pictures of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, I thought that you are a man with integrity. By the way, I come from a musical family too. My grandfather was a 1st violinist in the Bach Vereniging in Amsterdam. My sister has 3 children of a very known Dutch Musician. Her children all make music too, singing, guitar, bass guitar, violin and piano. I have a harpsichord myself and our 4 year old son just said that he wants to play violin together with mama. As we live in a 300 years old mainly wooden house in the center of Amsterdam the acoustics are very sensitive, to say the least, so piano is too much noise. Well. I took a lot of your time. In Holland we speak very freely about political problems and maybe we differ in that way.1027E (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What in heaven's name could my fondness for photography collecting have anything to do with integrity one way or another? Collectors are people like anyone else; some are saints, some devils, and the vast majority lie somewhere in between. The issues with sources have to do with a primary rule at Wikipedia; all of our material has to be verifiable. Everyone reading the article has to be able to go to the source and see for themselves that the material being presented in Wikipedia is correctly representing what the sources put forward. There's nothing at all special regarding Mr. Sawyer in this regard; an article about me (should someone care to write one) would suffer the same constraints. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Steel

Thanks for removing the spam!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Benjamins

Dear Mr. Gordon,

I note that you have placed an objection in the above article. Could you please explain in non-jargon terms, what you are referring to?

Thanking you in advance,

Rotterdam1953 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fondesep and Horneldinkrag

Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Horneldinkrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've got a hunch these are offshoots from a user who got blocked around Jan-Feb, but I would rather not say too much here - and it might be stale anyway. Is it worth pursuing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Email me the details. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll send you my theory when I get home. Meanwhile, the latest harasser, Corpiestre, was also blocked today. I wonder if he's the same as these other two. The M.O. is similar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I sent you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Uikopdep

Would you perhaps like to make a note about your findings at this SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So now we have two apparently unrelated sock farms that are essentially acting as meatpuppets for each other. Great. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Manzanita-critters.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Manzanita-critters.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

96.255.198.219

Say by any chance this might be Arma virumque cano that you CheckUsered? --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thansk PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PirateSmackK^Arrrr! has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Fahrenheit92 unblock decline

Yeah, it was, but consider that it was his fourth request in a very short time basically making the same argument as his other requests in the face of what two people said was very solid evidence.

And next time I'll remember to stick up for you :-).

I was sort of inspired by a passage in The Gulag Archipelago where someone who had just been charged with a crime that, he pointed out to the court, he would have committed at the age of five or so, was told "don't slander the Soviet intelligence services!"

(As an aside, maybe we should make up a special unblock template for users blocked due to Checkuser? It would help steer those of us who don't have access to it and can't really respond to unblock requests requiring review of that evidence away from them toward unblock requests we can review). Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would make some sense...not sure how it would work... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you have edited the ADL page, I thought you would be interested in the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Anti-Defamation LeagueHistoricist (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Query

HI JP, I noticed you blocked Nocal100 for violating the ARBCOM "ruling". I was curios how you came about suspecting that user was a sock. From what I see there were no interactions between the two of you. Did someone bring their suspicions to you? And if that is the case, would you mind telling me who brought their suspicions to you? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor brought his suspicions to me; examination showed pretty obvious sockpuppet behavior. I don't think it matters who; it was a good call. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't see any sockpuppet behavior, let alone anything "obvious". Indeed, if Nocal - an experienced and smart editor - was using a sock, s/he would have been careful not to give any indication, let alone strong indications, that the handle was a sock. That being said, the CU was not a good call, but a successful fishing expedition, imo. We have no idea if you didn't just CU every single "pro-Israel" editor in order to find some socks. Before you accuse me of not having the good faith, I would like to assure that it's not the case; I'm just covering all corners. It is precisely a situation like this that transparency is needed - to preclude any such suspicions. Your refusal to divulge who brought the suspicions towards you, surely doesn't diminish anyone's suspicions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Received your email. Sorry I couldn't respond until now, RL is taking my life over. If as you say, you are drama averse, the last thing you would want to do is run secret checkusers and give the impression that there's fishing going on. When I have the time, I will gather together the issues into an RFCU or ANI. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother with either. The checkuser rules are clear; "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing." If you want to challenge my reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, the proper venue is the Audit Subcommittee. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinkaxis51

Is there any way you can block the underlying IP? This puppet show must not go on. Blueboy96 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remind me who is this person? There were no other editors on that IP besides the ones I zapped. Seems dynamic, anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Autumn Leaves

Why did you erase my edit in Autumn Leaves, where I've added information about Grace Jones' cover of the song? I think it isn't irelevant. --Ogggy (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are many hundreds of, if not over a thousand, versions of Autumn Leaves. What's special about hers? Did it chart? Is it a key part of her oeuvre? Few singers who have ever done standards have not done that song. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Treat against you,

Dunno if you know about this, or if you even care, but Special:Contributions/Not to be blacklisted and Special:Contributions/Pay for the can at once spells out threats against you. _→AzaToth 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Compulsive masturbators are really a drain on society, aren't they? Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC etc.

Avraham reported that these are not related to the User:CENSEI sock farm. The M.O. seems more like that of the banned User:Pioneercourthouse's sock farm. He came in with knowledge of certain users, which could also suggest User:Ron liebman, but this doesn't fit the M.O. - although both of those guys (who as far as I know are unrelated) edited within the last week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Beganlocal (talk · contribs)

Um, did you click the link on his page? In the box, it says "suspected sockpuppets," which links to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Beganlocal. It's a redlink category, but it still lists the sockpuppet.

Beganlocal began deleting content from the talk page for Jewish-American organized crime, labeling it "illegal content." Three days later, Friends seated (talk · contribs) opened their account and immediately began edit-warring the same tactic, deleting content and using the edit summary "illegal content." I've blocked them for violating the three-revert rule for 31 hours; it remains to be seen whether the individual returns to their same activity. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the unblock! Highspeed (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man thx for the advice I created a new account, but can I change the signature on the discussion on the Bosniaks article, because I signed as Der Stürmer so I'm wontering can I change it since I'm blocked. Can you also tell me where can I ask for a third opinion because some guy is reverting my edits, but I have better arguments which I have put on the discussion page. Stürmkrieger (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for asking for third opinions. You shouldn't change the signature of an existing comment; it won't change anything, since the nazi name will still be in the page's history. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda deliberately divorced from anything relating to governance and policy discussions here. But thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As is your right ... but we will miss your wisdom (and hope you will change your mind and check in)! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront

I note that you changed my edit about their Internet service provider. On the talk page it is mentioned that it is incorrect to state that SF do not need an ISP. I altered this to do not need a website hosting provider as they have their own servers. You have reverted this edit and the article is once again incorrect. I would be obliged if you would correct this. I'm quite happy to take the rest to Talk:Stormfront (website). Thanks. Beganlocal (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take care of it yourself; I'll let it be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluemarine

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_resolved. Durova²⁸² 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do I file a complaint?

Jpgordon: User:Supreme Deliciousness continues to label another user as my sock and meatpuppet as a defence for his violation of the 3RR, in spite of 2 SPI's that he had initiated and that have resulted in "Declined" and "Unrelated", respectively. You have previously written a comment on my Talk page in this regard, which was appreciated. He also calls me a "liar" and other names. Where do I make a formal complaint on this matter? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just bringing it up on WP:AN/I again should work. If not, you'll get pointers there to what would be good next steps in the process. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found AN/I to be a place for bickering and teasing and people with a lot of time on their hands. I am not sure that it is an effective place to be. Any other ideas? Thanks anyway. By the way, I've had a GSD myself; looked very much like yours when he was a puupy :-) --Arab Cowboy (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe find another topic to edit? Sometimes giving up is easier than fighting; if an article is problematic, there's no law saying it has to be corrected today rather than, say, next week. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "sic"

I decided not to burden Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories with discussion of this edit by you, but I'll mention here that I disagree with you.

The source (Ambinder) used "diffuse" when what was probably meant was "defuse". A reader encountering the quotation with "diffuse" in our article might logically wonder whether the error was Ambinder's or whether a Wikipedian transcribed the quotation incorrectly. The "sic" there is useful to answer that reader's question without putting him or her to the necessity of clicking through to the source. I agree with you that we shouldn't use "sneer quotes" but the purpose here isn't to make fun of the source. JamesMLane t c 08:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still not our job to correct the sources we use. "Sic" really does look like a sneer: "look how stupid the speaker is". Also: "probably meant defuse" -- according to whom? Remember, we rarely get to use common sense here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about not correcting our sources. That's one reason to use the "sic" -- there's a danger that, without it, some Wikignome will come along and change the spelling. As for common sense, we generally don't use it to support factual assertions in articles but we do use it in making the numerous editorial judgments that arise.

Would you never insert a "sic"? JamesMLane t c 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Good question. I'll give it some thought. I'll admit I have the same gut reaction to it as sneer quotes, and prefer to err in the other direction. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just because some people use [sic] to ridicule people with poor spelling/grammar doesn't mean we shouldn't use it appropriately as it apparently was in this article. However, the [sic] should come at the end of the quote. –xeno^talk 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? How would the reader know what was being sicced? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They'd have to have a good grasp of English grammar, I suppose. Those who would care about "sic" tags would likely have already noticed the error before reaching the end of the quote,. –xeno^talk 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks a little neater at the end, but I think the benefit of knowing exactly what's being sicced outweighs that. In this instance, for example, there could be a dispute about using the term "birther"; some readers might think that the "sic" was there to assure them that the source had used that term. JamesMLane t c 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Spamusername blocks

The block of account creation is standard with a spamusername block, since they've shown an intention to spam. They are provided with instructions on how to appeal, which seems to me sufficient. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Technical accuracy

Unless you know something that I do not, Wiki-Piiiz has only been behaviourally confirmed, not checkuser confirmed. Another editor inserted the request for checkuser while processing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233, IPs in the range that are obviously Wiki-Piiiiz have been confirmed as Wiki-11233, but there has not been direct checkuser confirmation.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do know something you do not -- I'm a checkuser. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And I should have remembered that. Surprised I didn't. Thanks for taking care of this report.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Assertion

You have decline my request to revert my I block asserting that I was the same person, how could you do that?

Ooops forgotten to sign :D Fringescience (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Easily; you are .--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

extend+protect

Do you mind extending the block of User:98.211.215.58 and protecting User talk:98.211.215.58 against anon editing due to this? I don't want to do it myself, due to the obvious COI (it'd be a direct response to the user). tedder (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry to bother u again

i'm the guy u answer my music question the other day and this is ur answer below: It means you shouldn't notate rests as tied or continued over beats. So, for example, in 4/4, if your bar starts with a dotted quarter note, then a full beat of rest, then another dotted quarter note, you're expected to notate the rest as two eighth rests, rather than a single quarter rest

thax!but i still have problem with it because i'm from Taiwan so my English isn't that good..... so ,for example, "rests as tied or continued over beats" can u explain all more plainly?? and i can't really understand your example= = by the way,i know that quarter means crotchet,but what does full beat means? does it last 1 beat or 4 in 4/4?? sorry to cause u so much problem... this matter let me know that although music can be played everywhere,but language is still the barier...Vincecarter159753 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)vincecarter159753

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to talk about crotchets and quavers or quarter and eighth notes. And I'm not surprised I was unclear about whole beats. By "full beat" indeed I mean a crotchet in 4/4. I'd say "full measure" for 4 beats in 4/4. My browser doesn't know how to do musical notes (or if it does, I don't), so I need to make up a couple symbols here. Let's say X is a crotchet, X. is a dotted crotchet, Y is a crotchet rest, and Z is a quaver rest. This means you can't write a measure of | X. Y X. | even though it does add up to four beats; rather, you're expected to write the measure as | X. Z Z X. | -- does this make any sense? (By the way, are you studying music using Mícheál Houlahan's "From Sound to Symbol"? That's the only place I saw the phrase you used.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233

Any comments on the individual IP?—Kww(talk) 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's a no-brainer. Behavior alone suffices. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hiya Jpgordon. Thanks for freeing me. The IP address is slightly different from the one I had years ago. Is the fact that I got a new computer 2-yrs ago, the reason for the different IP? GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer shouldn't have anything to do with it. IPs change, sometimes daily, sometimes, much slower, depending on the druthers of your particular ISP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Impostor account(s)

I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and will also be taking it to User:Bigtimepeace:

The account Childof12AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [3] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't see anything I recognized, and there weren't any lovely piles of sleepers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Hey. I saw that you've made some edits on this article. Someone just went through and pretty thoroughly gutted the article. Rather than get into an edit war, I was wondering if you could weigh in on the issue. It may very well be that people prefer the smaller version, but another opinion is always welcome. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jonund is back on the talk page, saying that it is an "unfair demand" that he be asked to provide sourcing for including information regarding King's sexual proclivities. There's this phrase I've heard , although I'm not sure if its really appropriate for this instance, "topic ban"? John Carter (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He can say whatever he wants; if he doesn't get consensus, the stuff doesn't go on the article page, regardless of his feelings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 is sockpuppet

You just declined User:Inuit18 request for unblock, he is a sockpuppet of banned User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Draco of Utopia, User:Germany2008, User:Anoshirawan...), just compare his edit summary, behaviour and articles worked on. If you do a Check User it will confirm,,,, he is a racist, cursing at people of other race and all his edits are racist. His usual IP should be in Germany.--119.73.4.166 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll investigate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not precise with my early report. According to this RFCU report, admin User:Thatcher explained that the banned racist vandal User:Anoshirawan is in the United States. [4] The same banned racist vandal from the US created this new ID (User:Inuit18) and can be seen doing the following vandalism. [5], [6], [7], [8] If that's not enough proof then compare the decorations of banned User:Anoshirawan and his new sockpuppet. Anoshirawan in 2008 and Sockpuppet now --119.73.3.103 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please use WP:SPI for this. Thank you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you an administrator with Check User tools? You're telling me you are scared to block a proven sockpuppet? I don't know how to file the report there, if you can help start it.--119.73.3.103 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Scared"? Go away and ask for help from someone you haven't just pissed off. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

According to many wikipedians this IP is the banned user NisarKand. I am a new user on wikipedia and I am not a sockpuppet. none of these links can prove that I am this Anoshirawan.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I need some admin help

I know that WP:Flag policy says if there is an flag in the infobox of a sportsperson it should only BE flags of the country the person represented internationally and if someone hasn't played international they get the country they played in or the country they have expressed loyalty to. You see if you look at most WikiProject Ice Hockey articles this is not the case for most articles. So before I new about WP:Flag policy I assumed that it was if you are allowed to represent a country then you get that flag. So I put a Canadian flag on Alexei Ponikarovsky (He's canadian but hasn't represented team Canada just Team Ukraine) page and got referred to WP:Flag policy. So then I took off a Ukraine flag on Nikolai Zherdev because he has only represented Russia and has never represented Ukraine. Weirdly enough the same user that stopped from taking off a flag on Alexei stopped me taking one off on Nikolai. So there seems to be a weird double standard with the people a part of [[[WikiProject Ice Hockey]] and to make things worse they do not comply with wikipedia policy. I have no clue what to do because what WikiProject Ice Hockey is doing is contradiictary to wikipedia policy, but they also seem have a double standard that most of them all agree with. I would think they couldn't change wikipedia policy in their one corner and would have to take it up with administers, but that is not what they have done. If you can get back to me it'll be nice. --ThxFire 55 (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How have they explained it to you? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I got told by someone on my talk page that about WP:Flag policy then when I changed Zhedev's flag (since he's never played for team Ukraine) it kept getting reverted. I got the thing by just reading over Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Infobox Question: Nationality field .2F Flags. As you can see none of them agree with each other which produces this double standard, which only depends on the man editor of the articles choice. There was a proposal to change the name to International Representation (link here) which would make the WP:Flag policy more clear, but that was months ago. You look at countless articles like Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, etc. and they all don't follow WP:Flag while some do.--Fire 55 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you should be discussing this somewhere relevant; I don't know much about it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is where to discuss this since I can't discuss it on the wikiproject talk pages since no one agrees there. Plus they can't make a change to WP:Flag policy. This is just a matter of most (not all) people in a project not following wikipedia rules. So where do I take this up.?--Fire 55 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe on one of the Village Pump pages? I actually don't know much about this sort of policy fine tuning. It might just be one of those areas nobody agrees about right now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WASSUP MUVVAFUKKA?

YO YO YO WASSUP MA HOMIES N BI TCHES? WAS YO PUNK ASS UP TO THESE DAYS INNIT YO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.234.82 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia; in order to communicate with other users, it's better to write in English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Irrito

Sorry, but don't you think this is a little obtuse given the reams of text placed immediately following the template. At least give the guy a fair hearing even if he can't work out how to use the template properly. GDallimore (Talk) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A little obtuse, yeah. Feel free to undo it, but unthinking reverts always annoy me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Toally agreed, this guy is a bit heavy-handed on the reverts and I wish he'd been blocked a week ago, but I have to say I think he's being treated unfairly here. GDallimore (Talk) 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

whois template

Thanks for cutting the Gordian knot. I apologise for omitting you in my little list; I felt a single revert wasn't enough to justify inclusion. ;-) Hans Adler 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Drobba

Hi there; this user has apparently been caught up in a checkuser block applied by you to IP 194.176.105.40. He is asking for IP exemption. He has only a sparse editing history, but it does reach back to 2007, so may well be ok. I do note that two years ago he was caught in an autoblock of IP 194.176.105.39, which may be wholly irrelevant. I am unhappy awarding IP exemption without your approval; perhaps you could look at his request? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I separately reviewed Drobba's edits and found them to be appropriate overall. He edits topics related to the UK and the British Empire, although quite sparsely. I think IPBE is probably okay but it wouldn't hurt for you to have a look and see if this looks like a sock of whoever was causing trouble on this IP. Mangojuice^talk 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never quite understood why UK National Health Service IPs are such annoying sources of vandalism, but they're quite widely used by perfectly good registered users as well, so, yeah, go right ahead and IPBEatify. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

UK National Health Service IPS might be patients using hospital/clinic based computers. Maybe in between hits of chemo they get cranky. Also, I don't know why you left that smack down on my talk page. I wasn't implying that you were not impartial. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda felt like you were implying that; if I misread, sorry about the snarkiness. I seem to be in a bitchy mood these days (even without chemo) -- I'll be more careful. On the other hand, I did tell you how to get unblocked, and it worked. So I guess it's a wash. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks

Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Many citations in the current article are based on press reports (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.

The current set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.

I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.

I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.

Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See the Talk:September 11 attacks? Use it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bupsiij

Bupsiij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l apologizing. I have reduced his block to 6 months. Fred Talk 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus count

How would I get a consensus on whether or not a page should be included in a category?Jwh335 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the talk page for the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Larry McDonald

Hello, over a year ago you asked a question on the Larry McDonald talk page. I'm informing you that I've answered your question, in case you still care. --darolew (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I'm bringing this up here so as not to embarass you. You can erase this after reading it.

I've read POINT. It says in bold "State your point; do not prove it experimentally"

I never said those other examples should be kept or deleted. Nothing was trying to be proved.

I merely started a discussion about consistency and if these were related.

You may or may not intend this, but when you write things, you come off as very aggressive. If your job involves writing, please reconsider this. This is to help you personally. Again, after reading this, you may remove it. If your job involves face to face contact, then maybe aggressive writing is not a problem because most of your work is verbal.

This Wikipedia thing is too aggressive for me. I am quitting as of now. I might come back but not anytime soon. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bye. Enjoy yourself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Show-Truth

It certainly appears Show-Truth has returned as INTEL-12 (talk · contribs), opening up a new thread at the BLP board about Chima. Just passing it on. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of your actions is under discussion at WP:ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:dreamshit blocked for username violation - review please for details. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

The Admin's Barnstar

Awarded in recognition of your help with a disruptive editor on the Karl Rove page last month; many thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't even remember, but thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock

I also ask that you please unblock IronAngelAlice, as I feel responsible for getting her blocked. Soxwon (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Merci fellow Vegan. And my G-d, I love Oingo Boingo and Woodie Guthrie (saw your Antique RS bit). Too cool....--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Jeepers, I thought you meant vegan and wondered how I offended you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no " Vegan" with a capital "V." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

your list of banned sources

I was wondering if you could give me your latest list of sources you consider banned without argument. I've had run-ins with you before about this and would rather not waste my time given your advance position that you do not entertain argument about the reliability of sources on your ban list.Bdell555 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Such are the privileges of being a Wiki insider, eh? Just go around reverting other people's work saying you revert anything cited to sources you don't like END OF ARGUMENT because you can always invite me to take things up with OTHER Wiki insiders who support you when you say summary action is necessary in the name of noble struggle against anti-Semitism. Never mind that the article I am editing and my edit itself and what the particular source says has absolutely zero to do with anti-Semitism or anything Jewish. One of these days you might actually be called upon to use human reason to defend your behavior. You seem to believe that there are a bunch of Wiki users out there who are dirty rats who should not receive the dignity of being engaged because you consider them anti-Semites. If you really want to serve the cause, I suggest considering the concept of the UNIVERSALITY of human dignity. I don't suppose you are going to start with this courtesy now by stating that you will henceforth treat ALL Wiki users as if they are editing a noncontroversial mathematics article and not sorting them on some sliding scale whereby how deserving they are of explanation and engagement is function of the content of the article they are editing? I take it I am pretty low on your contempt scale since all I get is a "Nope" but not at the complete bottom because "Nope" is still an answer!Bdell555 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How about, "go bother someone else?" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Steve Grayce

Hey :) Can you have a second look at this user please? He's requesting unblock and after a very quick look, I wasn't able to find a relationship with the master. Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 11:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been carefully examined; we've got a lot of experience with HK and his socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to trust in that, but since you responded here, Steve Grayce has claimed he is the IP editor discussed here: [9] which was "inconclusive" as a HK match. Does this make you think twice about it? Mangojuice^talk 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

email scent. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

administrator problems

This was an edit "antonio" made a week or two ago. Not five years ago. Also, Benji's DISCUSSION page should be a DISCUSSION page, like I assumed it was, since that's what everbody else's is. If you don't want to help, please butt out. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Knock off with the abusive edits and I'll "butt out". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator

Hi JP, just wondering if you could tell me how I become a Wiki Admin, I've seen a lot of vandalism lately and it really bothers me.I mean, it's all I can think about, I can't even sleep knowing someone on the internet has written something I disagree with. I just wish I could do something about it...please, it's incredibly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.6.134 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're responsible for this garbage, so what you'll need to do is go away for a very long time and hope that when you come back nobody has any idea what you've done in the past. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock?

Hi. Malke's block has expired, but he seems to think there's an autoblock on his account. Autoblock detector isn't finding anything, but I'm so not tech. :) Can you help out at User talk:Malke 2010? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was nearly losing hope in wikipedia

Such correct people like you are too rare. I think I need a break after this. Thank you. --91.130.91.26 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

94.192.38.247 on ANI

Since you were an unblocking admin on this user back in August, you may want to comment on the current ANI thread ongoing here. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You were just wrong about this one. Seems to me it would be more sensible to recognize it and move past it than to quit Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was already in semi-retirement, this was a long time coming. I may come out of retirement one day, but I will have to think long and hard on it before I do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah -- your response to all this seemed disproportionate, so I figured it was a straw-breaking-the-camel's back sorta thing. Hope you find something more enjoyable to spend your time on. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:91.130.91.26

You unblocked this user, but he was not exactly blocked for uncivility. He was blocked before that under another IP account for edit warring and sock puppeting. When he posted his comments on ANI, he was actually evading his block. That's the reson, and several admins have noted it while declining his request. Any comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he (she, or it) should actually have been blocked for that, not improperly accused of vandalism. I unblocked that particular block; if someone has a legitimate cause to block him, then it would likely stand. If a cop mistakenly arrests someone for grand theft when the actual crime was littering, you still have to drop the grand theft charge, even if you want to press charges for the littering. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But admins had explained him he was blocked for that too. This user has been long using many different accounts and edit warring. He had a blocked account (for edit warring and sock puppetry) and came all of a sudden to ANI with a new IP address, continuing edit warring and even personally attacking other editors. One admin blocked him, 5 admins declined his unblock request, and you unblocked him. You say "if someone has a legitimate cause to block him" - you are an admin, and as you now know why he was actually blocked, you should be able to do it. Am I wrong? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm able to. But I'm not going to; any of the other involved admins can block him for a legit reason. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not going to if it was cleared it was actually a mistake unblocking him and there is a legit reason? One admin blocked him, 5 declined his unblock requests (stating the reasons I told you of above by the way), and you all of a sudden unblocked him. I think it was not a good step, and as an admin you should correct this mistake despite the warm "thank you" the guy gave you (I understand the situation, if that's the reason you are inclined to do it). He should not have been unblocked in the first place, you have blocked him, so I think you should turn it back. Am I getting anything wrong here? Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm insufficiently familiar with the case to block; it was simple to become familiar enough with the case to unblock. Find another admin -- for example, one that refused to unblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User/Derek Llambias

Hi, im not sure of the exact situation with that person but i'd just like to clarify the information he gave. It was true that Derek Llambias did strip off and streak across the pitch at St.James Park, it was witnessed by renowned journalist Alan Oliver who i believe wrote up the story in 2 different newspapers. One could have been the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, so is this vandalism when the story is true? cheers --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you gave me some links to what you were talking about, I might have some idea what you were talking about. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo

I do not remember clealy whether you ever had any negative encounters with Stevertigo back in the day. Juuuust in case you did, you should know about this - otherwise, ignore it, and sorry to have troubled you, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember, I started the immediate previous AN/I topic about him. He's exactly the sort of editor I run and hide from, though -- makes me too angry to think clearly. Actually, I'm taking your advice -- ignoring him as best I can. I am following the topic, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I missed that. Maybe at this point I should go back to "ignore" mode but really, years of this ... Thanks for putting it forward! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Camponhoyle socks

Yesterday you declined an unblock for MattiasGoyle (talk · contribs) with the comment "Checkuser verified abusive alternate account of blocked user". It has occurred to me that the reason why Camponhoyle and his socks were quiet from July until now was school holidays: with the new term, suddenly several more appeared and were blocked yesterday, and today there are two more already, TheTraitor (talk · contribs) and Servanthoyle3 (talk · contribs). Did your checkuser by any chance identify a school IP as the origin of these socks? If so, a schoolblock including account-creation blocking might save a good deal of trouble. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• They keep coming, but an SPI case has been closed with the comment: "No real chance at a range block", so it seesm my idea won't fly. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Thinkprofits

Thanks for the note I read on this user's talk page. I had been part of assessing this user's articles (and my opinions of their utility were unfavourable as you can see from the associated AfD to which I contributed). However, even though they made a very poor start, I actually thought they were trying to contribute usefully; perhaps, as sometimes happens, I was too naive. I'm also very inexperienced with blocking/unblocking, so I was trying to identify if indeed this username had been blocked before I went further. Anyway, I do respect your judgment about the spam links; I'll help the user if they request it of me, but I'm not going to make it possible for them to spam. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you did exactly the right thing, no prob. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Spzmnky

My watch list notified me of your blocking of User:Spzmnky, (which i'm not saying I agree/disagree with), But I didn't see a blocked template on their page? abc518 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably didn't. I sometimes don't bother when I find a nest of time-wasters like this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocks

About your blocks of User:Sandra.henred and User:JME8205... I agree they weren't doing the encyclopedia any good (and in fact, I blocked several sockpuppets of one of their friends), but at the same time, neither of them seem to have edited in several days, or to have done any Myspacing since I warned them, so is a block necessary? (That being said, if they're gone anyway then it doesn't make much difference; I just don't want to encourage them to become trolls, like one of their friends briefly did.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole bunch of them are all coming from one IP, and the whole bunch of them seem to have nothing to offer the encyclopedia. I didn't look much deeper. If you want to unblock for some reason, go right ahead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's ok, I think we're better off without them; just wanted to check with you. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I would like to personally apologize about everything that went on from this IP address I know some coworkers are "immature" about all of it but I have made contributions, and after I was warned about the social network I immediately stopped. I want to thank you for your patience and hope this all gets put behind us. I am not sure who else is blocked I do however know there are one or two other new people who are interested in actually editing including user:JME8205, for the others oh well they're blocked probably for the better.

Thanks, Chris --Cjones132002 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Knowledgeispower76

I responded to your post on PhilKnight's talk page. I don't feel I was being BITEy, I do feel I was within reason in my discussion and later warnings. If you felt I was, please discuss that with me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking early, I'm confident that was the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Looks like you are one of a very few admins online right now. Would you mind having a look at AIV, it is quite backlogged. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm snuggled up in bed listening to the Nat "King" Cole Trio, and am saying goodnight. Sorry! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) Have a Good Sleep :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

COI

Hi. I have uncovered a tremendous COI that pertains to the redacted IP address. How should I proceed without outing the user?--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Private mail to ArbCom should suffice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If it is denied or not addressed, I will do so with the edvidence.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

I'm extremely cautious these days regarding Reversion of pages. Here's an article that's been reverted against my work. The editor admitted (I think) not knowing anything about the Protocols of Zion, yet Reverted my work without discussion. There is no one who objected to my work on this article. I only have a difference over Content with this one editor. I would appreciate it very much if you looked into the matter. Any guidance you give me on how to handle the situation - will carry great weight with me. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: The reverting editor is User:Loremaster. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind. I think I'll be able to work things out. Sorry for the bother. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/New World Order (conspiracy theory)/archive1

I just found the above - and now there's no consensus: it's two against two (an outside editor, no name, has reverted. The article in question also involves the Protocols of Zion. So I could use your advise on how to deal with the situation. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seek to achieve consensus on the article talk page, as always. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Got you. Thanks a million! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

I'm contacting you now because you're and Administrator and knowledgeable about the above. The above is now the {{Main}} article in relation to The Beckwith Company which published the second American edition, in book form, of "The Protocols" under the title "Praemonitus Praemunitus." Now I suspect that a possible {{WP:Troll}} appeared on the scene because I commenced an "ANI" against him previously which I subsequently dropped. I do not know how to handle the situation. He may just be uninformed. But he also appears, by the versions he re-writes, to wish to promote his POV that The Protocols are true. I've tried to tell him that he must be guide by the "Main" article. But I'm not sure he understands me. How do I handle that bpredicament? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS1: It's the same editor I mentioned above. I though the problem was solved. I made a new section here because I wanted to be clearer about which article is involved. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS2: The guy thanked me for supplying footnotes, so I think it was after all a misunderstand. Again, I'm sorry to have bothered you. We just worked on Harris A. Houghton, the anonymous editor of "The Protocols."

Removal

I like how you can give, but not take. If you are going to act the big man, learn to deal with a response. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Crude and obscene ones like yours? No thanks. Go away. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Strawman. Unimpressive and defenceless to the last I note. Ok, you dont have an argument in defence of the position you push on others, I suppose I should be more kind. Fine, have fun with that. But I hope you have at least the self awarness to realise the irony of your "go away"....Self appointed, POlice. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What is there, in anything I have said -- including on Ottava Rima's talk page, where this seems to have started -- that in any way explains or justifies your utter nastiness towards me? I don't understand this at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN#Talk page ban proposal on User:Calton and User:JohnHistory

Sorry for the intrusion, but I'd like your opinion as an honest broker at the above. I absolutely do not regard the proposers, especially User:Ched Davis, as being honest brokers. In fact, I have my suspicions regarding Ched Davis and favoritism (see his treatment of ObserverNY, ChildofMidnight, and JohnHistory), though nothing that yet rises to the level of ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!1!!. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A Question

In regards to this, I this a CU finding or merely based on this diff? I am mostly just curious, but I am hoping it is the former since that diff is hardly compelling evidence by itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• CU. That's why I put the confirmed sock notice on the user's page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I thought it was a Schlafly meatpuppet, not worth getting worked up over, but it turns out it was Roger, eh? Glad you thought to check. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, cool. I figured it probably was a CU, but I wasn't sure. As an aside, he is now acting like he doesn't understand the indef. block. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)r

"Acting" being the operative word. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain this edit? I don't see any sign that you made any attempt to merge the data from the movie into Story. Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is nothing but advertising inserted by what appear to be principles in the film's promotion and/or production team. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New sock

Ricky3374 is a clear sock of Pecker3378 you blocked in August. Do I need to open a new case? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And Egar3767? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I bet you know how to make links like User:Egar3767. I'll check. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about your recent Deborah Lipstadt change reversion

Would you please explain your reversion of this edit to Deborah Lipstadt on Talk:Deborah Lipstadt? Your edit history doesn't say why. I didn't make the edit, but the editor who did seemed to justify it on the talk page. It does not appear to be vandalism or even WP:NPOV to me, although I admit I am not an expert on the subject (I just have the page on my Watchlist, looking for vandalism). Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Section blanking with no edit summaries always gets reverted, basically. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Coolness. Thanks for the change. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Why is

Ricky3374 and Egar3767 blocked. Can you please explain. 138.89.39.190 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As their blocks say, "abusing multiple accounts". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, User:StaintPatricksRoad? Thanks again. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at whats going on at the Jimmy Hoffa page. It seems that there are editors with a personal beef with an author/book I have written about. You seem to have an interest in that page. --Theboss1970 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Spectre- aha.

I wondered if you'd seen the SPI when you were blocking. Glad to have it confirmed; I'm not sure how I got roped into the mess of it in the first place, but it's nice to start putting the socks together. Are you comfortable tagging User:Nugglesmom? tedder (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going on checkuser evidence; someone else gets to do the content analysis. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I thought you were doing it based on content alone, not CHU. Never mind. tedder (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

vandalism

vandalism

references removed to fit his interest - the text was removed before this but he kept same reference. Now he removes ref.thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Not vandalism. WP:AGF. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

you think that a Book Published by Cambridge University is not verifiable reference.

Blanking Vandalism: Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.-- LONTECH  Talk  01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Jpgordon. 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 an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz

Dear Jp,

It's this character who hounded me before and was most responsible in getting me Banned for two years. If you look at the ANI you'll see that User:Verdatum has identified him as hounding me. You don't expect me to believe that every Wikipedian is an Angel, do you? I would appreciate very much if you would advise me how to handle this ... it's taking me extreme effort not to interject an expletive in describing this editor. I look forward to your appropriate response. I've answered you on the ANI, and simply ignored this editor. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, you yourself were most responsible for getting yourself banned. You need to take some responsibility for your own behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Hi! Why have u done this? Take care of yourself, please! --Dimitree (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:CitizenofEarth

Could you correct the links to the SPI, please? Since CoE asked for my help getting him started up on Wikipedia, I'm curious about reading them but "Hawner;g" is a red link. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no SPI, just an accusation of abuse of multiple accounts which I verified. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there usually a category detailing the sockpuppets of said user? The one of Hawner;g is red, as I said above. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not usually. This sort of socking is so common that we usually just bag, tag, and move on; no reason to extend much more effort. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I asked another admin, but they haven't responded yet. Should I delete everything of his on my talk page per WP:RBI? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't unless they become particularly obnoxious. On occasion, brats who start out this way become decent contributors, if they're allowed to engage in dialogue on their talk page. It's rare, but still. After all, socking is sometimes just a technical violation; it depends a lot on the underlying behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just Beeblebrox did it so I was wondering if I should follow his example. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace here (aka Jade) said to ask you this. but I was wondering how did you know he was a sock? I don't see any evidnece, or am I completely thick? =S 'The Ninjalemming' 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

He said as much in his unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

were can I view his unblock request? Want to see what you mean. =P 'The Ninjalemming' 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thou might try his userpage, mayhap? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

but thou might also wonder if any special page exists for thou to read 'The Ninjalemming' 17:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to spell it out: Here, he replaces his own autoblock unblock request with something about the other username. Autoblock unblocks generally get checked to see if indeed it's collateral damage against a third party or the original offender trying to edit again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to put the lower bit on anyway which shows he was most likely both users or more, although your extra input also put light on this fact;

It would appear that User:Hawner;g's creation was during user:CitizenofEarth's editing period; why would he go to the trouble of creating a seperate account for certain editing? And were can we check his IP, he may be on a schools IP? It does seem as though he was using 'Hew' because the only three things he vandalised was Thejadefalcon's userpage and Beeblebrox's, both of which Citizen knew. Although Citizen didn't vandalise he still only made social edits or inconstructive edits on talkpages, with the exception of one; meaning he would be breaking WP:NOT anyway. Along with the fact he probably wouldn't have known from his edits that they were both on the same IP without following him or actually being him, thus meaning (unless he has another account somewhere) that he is both of the two users. This is all the evidence I needed for this. I'm done here unless Thejadefalcon also wihes to make a comment? 'The Ninjalemming' 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was satisfied with the opinion of two admins, just for the record. Just to clarify though, you now also think CoE and Hawner are the same? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, before I wasn't satisfied as I thought it could have been a joint IP from a school or (though very unlikely) accidently the same IPs. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with this stuff. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hence why I was content with you and another admin saying he was a sock. Sorry for bothering you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you also (dispite the fact that, right now, I'm still bothering you) but I wanted to clear it up (but ended up, before you told me, working it out myself. But remember there could be more out there, watch your back; over. =P See ya 'The Ninjalemming' 19:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No bother! Hope I wasn't sounding snarky (it's been a rough week.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He's Back

He just left a message on my talk page via an unblocked IP. I'm not sure whether to believe him or not, especially since I found this edit to another talk page which seems to contradict my known information. He also made this edit recently. As the blocking admin, I thought you should be aware if you weren't already, and take appropriate action. However, it seems odd that he didn't simply place another unblock request on his user page (and odder still that he came to me). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Former Sockpuppeteer here

Hi, just thought I'd apologize for being deceptive in my attempts to post new info about the Hoffa case. If at all possible, could you have a look at the information and see if you and Tedder and HU12 can come to some kind of understanding with me about the revelence that the information has to the public. I do not seek links to my website or any third party sites like amazon.com and only want to share the information I have uncovered. The links to the outside media sources would be beneficial to folks who are looking to conduct research on the subject of the Hoffa disappearance. Sincerely--Spectre7277 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just bring it up on the article talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic.2Fsite_ban_proposal_for_user_Spectre7277--Hu12 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with Priscila Herig

The back-and-forth at Hayden Christensen is on again. I've reverted her twice, and am now reluctant to do a third revert for fear some admin like Chamal N will make the same mistake and block me. I've tried reasoning with User:Priscila Herig; nothing seems to help. I've been told that instead of getting into wars with vandals, I should ask for help, so I'm asking. -- Zsero (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked. However: I see nothing on the article talk page to indicate anyone has tried any other approach besides edit warring. In the future, etc, etc. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The attempts to reason with her have taken place on her talk page, and on the talk pages of those who've reverted her. She's turned down requests to justify her edits on the article talk page. -- Zsero (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, you need to make at least an attempt on the article talk pages to avoid what happened previously; you can't expect an admin who is responding to a (possibly third party) complaint of edit warring to go hunting down user talk pages that the involved editors may or may not have used. Article talk pages always have to be the first place for such discussion. Saves hassle. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrative Help request

Hello, would you be kind enough to address the abuse I've been getting by User Jusdafax on the Karl Rove talk page [15]? (Scroll down to the end of the talk page to see the latest comment.) This user has a history of these sorts of derogatory comments against me. It seems he attacks people whenever they want to change anything on Karl Rove's page, but he does seem to be especially vitriolic when it comes to me and any edits or comments I've made. This behavior rises above just being uncivil as it seems he does it to make an example of me so that others will not agree with me for fear of the same vitriole being aimed at them and also to isolate me so that others will gang up on me to gain favor from Jusdafax. I believe it is time for this user to be temporarily blocked. Would you please take a look at these comments and if you like, I can come up with the comments in the Archives, they are really awful. Thank you,Malke 2010 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a classic example of what I'm talking about:

This is my post which was not directed at anybody in particular, just a general statement:

"Please refrain from using as your sources gossip and supposition. Just because you've put up a source next to a claim you're making does not mean it is a source as recognized by Wikipedia. Please remember the talk page is not a blog for your personal opinions and/or personal attacks against other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"

This is his response:

"Here again, Malke, you try to use the tactics of intimidation. Your comments have only a specious plausibility, and in my view your intent is to discourage truthful additions to this article. You have previously used terms like 'libel' to further this aim; despite your being a Wikipedian just over a week you come off like a wikilawyer, pompous and overbearing citing this and that. I urge all to ignore your blather. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)]"

There's clearly a pattern and a design here. Thanks for your helpMalke 2010 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

screaming

I thought all caps was screaming, and sorry, but I don't sound like a loon. Jusdafax sounds like a loon. For certain. LOL.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices is worth a read. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out screaming now, see: Religion Redux. . .[16] Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody home???

I asked for help earlier and was wondering what happend with that? thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching but not interested in intervening as an admin, at this moment. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Always good to get an answer one way or the other. On the screaming thing, I figured that out. LOL. Please keep watching :)Malke 2010 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxred thing

I just went to the Soxred thing to see my usage, and under User it has me, and you, and something called, Malke_2010/Karl Rove. What's up with that?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "soxred thing" is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See bottom of [17]. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously created this page at some point. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If I created that, I amaze myself sometimes. . .I have no idea how I did that. But it also says JP Gordon. . .this is weird, I'm going to have to figure this out now. . .Wait, what is thejadefalcon doing here?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a talk page stalker beyond compare. I can appear in the most unlikely places imaginable. xD Here's the edit to JPGordon's page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be the sandbox somebody made for me last summer. . .don't know why there's a jpgordon there, weird. . .Malke 2010 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No big deal. You accidentally edited my user page once instead of my talk page. As far as thejadefalcon is concerned, he reverted a piece of spam from my talk page a few days ago (thanks!), so it's on his watchlist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What's a page stalker and how do I get to be one?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I edited your talk page??? :D XD That's hilarious. . .and worse, I just got a new Macbook Pro and my fingers are all over the place hitting the word keys. I better get off here before I blank something. BTW cool pic of you with the guitar. Happy ThanksgivingMalke 2010 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my user talk page. You also edited my user page once. Happy Thanksgiving! (and that's a ukulele!). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww, cute puppy! And I've actually had your page watched since the Citizen of Earth incident. (points to top of page) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it was a ukulele I just couldn't spell ukulele, but I knew that you knew it was a ukuleleMalke 2010 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the caption for the picture! xD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I need to replace that picture; she's a year and a half old now and much bigger. Much MUCH bigger. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

← Aww, don't! She's cute. Just put a second picture up. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fritzi among the wildflowers

Here she is at a bit over a year old, enjoying the incredible spring we had this year in Kernville. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(squee) Now you have reaffirmed my desire to have a dog like that when all my cats have passed on. German Shepherd's are now tied with beagles. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Love the dog. . .like her name. We're getting a German shepard, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled photo deletion

Hey there, There are a couple of photos over on Jonas Salk's page that are scheduled for deletion. Something about the source of the photos, but they are in the public domain. Why would photos get deleted especially if they offer insight into the times/the subject/etc., and how can I try to keep that from happening? I'll go back and reference for the photos for you.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the first one [18]Malke 2010 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Second one [19]. There might be more but my point is that these photos are in the public domain and are excellent examples of the prevailing conditions of the time. Is there a way to fix this?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just contribute to the discussion over at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Salk_Thank_You.jpg -- the nuances of copyright law, US Govt agencies, quasi-govt agencies, and so on seem to be in play. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Every time I here "quasi-anything" I think of this guy. Is there something wrong with me? And can you explain simply what the rules on uploading pictures are, because I can't wrap my head around them. Every time I see "non-free image" I think "wouldn't it be better to, you know, find a picture we don't have to pay for?" It confuses me the hell out of me... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. I've not had to deal much with the issue; I only submit pictures I've taken myself, and few of those. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, great. Back into the gauntlet of policy I go... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Andyb215 unblock denial

I declined his next unblock, but I think he has a point here. I know people say that all the time, and that I'm not perfect in that area myself, but do try to avoid that level of sarcasm in the future. I shouldn't have to be apologizing, even tacitly, to a blocked vandal on behalf of a fellow admin, much less an arbitrator. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm not an arbitrator anymore. I suppose it's not much different than pointing excuse-making vandals to WP:BROTHER. But you're right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find

I googled references for Karl Rove and found this [20]. Then when I looked for the guy on wikipedia I found this: [21]. Obviously same guy, but is he back with the new user I.D.? Can this page be deleted? I think he's the one who wrote the original KR article because the writing, entries are identical, which explains a lot about why the article is slanted the way it is. Also, am wondering if the reason a certain editor or two is/are so determined to discourage any changes to the article is because they represent a new sock(s).Malke 2010 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

He didn't start the article; look at the earliest history. Rather, he copied the article into his user space in September of 2005, so that version (in his user space) was just a "sandbox" for "BigDaddy's" desired version of the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Looks like he got banned for the sock puppet thing. I don't understand how people do that. How many computers can a person have? Isn't it obvious where the user is coming in from?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not obvious, and malefactors can fake it. Malefactors are like that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really easy if you know what you're doing, have access to other systems you can ssh into, have access to private proxies, make edits from libraries/internet cafes/starbucks, etc. It's also pretty easy to spoof an IP or even MAC address. In the end, I'm sure the smartest socks never even get caught. There's simply too many ways of going about doing it, and too little knowledge, experience, and/or free time on the part of those trying to prevent it. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

I appreciate your acknowledgement that a c/u request may not always be reliable where large institutions are concerned. I've started a discussion here to see if we can brainstorm some ways to ensure this type of thing happens less frequently in the future. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks again! Throwaway85 (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question from ZQPM2941

Please note, it wasn't an edit it was a selfrevert. My facts were part of the WP page before the warning. As you can see from the current message on the page in question, AUA is trying to "Protect" this page, which is nothing more than controlling this page from the facts. I feel this further proves their bias and use of WP as nothing more than advertising their business. ZQPM2941 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you only blocked me and not the individuals that REVERT information without discussion. This is against WP rules.

Please note on the American University of Antigua history the warning was given before the information was reverted, 1:51, 2 December 2009. Then User Leuko reverted the facts. I only selfreverted the facts I posted! Again I ask you what do you need for me to provide to prove this information is not original research? I can provide these final grades, my grades AUA sent me, court exibits of the grades. These are not original research these facts are AUA documents! AUA is using WP as an advertising tool. If you research the history page you will see that they have reverted this information based on bias, neutrality, now original research(again when they know its they're documentation). Please do not make this site private this will only allow AUA to post bias information to advertise for them. I feel you are doing future students a grave injustice by not allowing facts like these from being posted. These are facts! ZQPM2941 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block anyone. Continue to edit war and you'll be blocked again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

editing question

I split the Karl Rove page a while back on the suggestion and how to of another editor. The new split article is called "Karl Rove in the Geo.W.Bush Admin." I made the talk page, but is this article still part of the University of Texas bio project? and if so, how do I get that notice [22] up on the talk page for the new article? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

At the top of Talk:Karl Rove, you can see things like {{WikiProject Texas}}. That's what makes that all happen. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

more from ZQPM2941

Please tell me how to stop please from reverting my information w/o cause? If you research the history page you'll see all I did was selfrevert which isn't against the rules. Any input would be greatly appreciated. ZQPM2941 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. Work it out there. If you can't work it out there, there are various dispute resolution steps you can take. The worst thing to do is just keep putting back your desired information. By the way, "self revert" means "reverting your own edits, not someone elses." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Outting on my talk page

I was wondering if I could get you to speedy delete User:Mathsci's outting of me on my talk page. I had already put in a request to have other details pertaining to the case deleted, but this one is much more egregious, and I thought I'd contact you directly for the speediest resolution. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Which outing? That you're one of 20,000 students at a particular university? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is what TA85 means. Blocked user User:Technical reasons, editing with an IP from the same university, intervened in a discussion on TA85's talk page. The IPs of the university were already mentioned in the on-wiki discussions following the indefinite block by User:J.delanoy and your subsequent unblock. There might conceivably be some kind of meatpuppetry going on, since TA85 chose to restore the edit by User:Technical reasons (a personal attack) after it had been removed by Chillum. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

TA85 has not understood your reply and has threatened to take this to WP:ANI. That seems like unnecessary disruption to me. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Information on the university I attend specifies which city I live in, a likely demographic, and other information that I would prefer not be publicly available. I do apologize to Mathsci for calling his edit summary false, as I had not seen Jpgordon's reply before I said so. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I thread being closed, I would still appreciate the information being removed. Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFO will explain how to get that taken care of. (Yes, technically I'm capable of it, but I've not used my "oversight" privileges at all recently, and I don't know what the current protocols are.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing WP:ANI archives concerned with another user is probablly not the way to go about things. [23] Is Throwaway85 going to remove the whole thread in this archive at some later date because it mentions Technical reasons (talk · contribs) and the two IPs that he used? The best thing is to forget about it. Nobody cares two hoots if somebody is editing from a large institution. Here is one time I edited while logged out in an article which, with 600 edits to it and its talk page, leaves very little doubt who was editing and from which large UK institution (with a proxy for gaining access to journal articles - the next edits from the IP 82.66.163.12 are my fixed home IP in France). [24] There's no big deal here. Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I only seek to remove the information in question. A personal IP is, if anything, less personally identifiable than one belonging to a university, as running the whois lookup, as you did, on a university IP will return the school someone studies at. Running a whois lookup on a personal IP merely returns the ISP one uses. In addition, if you feel it no big deal that you exposed your IP, that's fine. Don't assume that other people feel the same way and are okay with you posting said information on their talk page. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

More from ZQPM2941

Jpgordon I posted AUA documentation on their site “Final Grades”. This is their documentation and shows how this institution does business, which is fraud. I asked numerous times for them to show otherwise, to show proof this was not AUA documentation, which instead my edit was reverted, without talking, even though I requested dialog. I propose the following: I uncover my name from the Final grades image; show the original email notifying me of these grades, and the Out Patient evaluation that was signed by the doctor and has a court exhibit sticker on it. How much more documentation, proof would be required to show that the Final Grades document is real and that these other editors are purposefully blocking the facts about this institution. Then how do I protect that edit from people reverting it, so I will not be acused of warring when I put it back. I don't see how these facts are any more or less bias than AUA's claims of students filing lawsuits against Arkansas

ZQPM2941 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ZQPM2941 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The people you've been discussing this with on the article talk page are giving you good and appropriate advice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome IP and Various Spoofs

Hi JP, This user is making nonsense edits, and has been blocked several times on various accounts. He's at it again, and leaving silly messages on my talk page. Please help. Regards --Sikh-History 17:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more from ZQPM2941

Please give me an example of this advise, becuase I haven't seen it. I've seen AUA using every excuse they can to stop the facts from being posted but not advice as to keep the facts posted... The only usable advise is to what report the users that revert my facts. 200.7.58.98 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Since it seems like I'm the only one that was blocked for this "war". I would like to avoid being blocked again(permanently) I would like the facts to be published without being reverted and since it appears AUA is requesting a "private" page with limited access I need to avoid this mostly, so this page does not turn into another one sided advertisement page for them So I need as much advise on what I publish, unrefuted proof that it's from them to show facts concerning this institutions business practice... If someone reverts my facts without just cause and without a viable explanation. What do I do. It has to be obvious that they have tried to use: bias, nuetrality, legal, and lastly original source(even though the facts are from them) as excuses So what is concidered unrefuted facts that they can't revert? I do not want to cause an edit war, so what is your advice on what to do when they use they tactics to start an edit war? Just report it to you? 200.7.58.98 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The advice is on the article talk page. Your "unrefuted proof" -- test score transcripts -- is a violation of WP:PRIMARY, which reads in part

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

In short, it can't be used, as you've repeatedly been told. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting since it's AUA's documentation not mine. Thanks let me put more of their information together that proves it's theirs. Thanks again for the help, 200.7.58.98 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with this; you don't seem to understand in the slightest what the problem with this is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand perfectly. You said it yourself and AUA demonstrates it on their page as the admins of wiki have. It’s OK for the AUA to use references that are from their own Web page, without verification, and site articles that shine them in a favorable light. When there's truth about them that shines a different color is turned on it is not acceptable. That’s sad. Was it money, legal threats or what???? You don't have to answer that, I wanted to say that even though I'm sure you wouldn't. Thanks for the help. Here's an idea for wiki, why not make a private advertisement page for institutions like AUA. While they're at it why not petition the congress to take away the first amendment? What was I thinking, here I thought wiki was suppose to be based on facts. 200.7.55.184 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable facts from reliable sources that are neither original research nor non-neutral points of view, yes. However, snce you're accusing me of malfeasance, you really need to stay away from my talk page. Thank you and goodbye. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppet issue you had previously worked on

Hello, You had previously blocked indefinitely multiple accounts relating to the sockpuppets of Anne Teedham. I'm just making you aware that there is another one, who is vandalizing multiple articles within Wikipedia again/currently User:Merry_Yellow. I know you're busy but you can refer to your block for "Abusing multiple accounts" [here]. If you can please look into this it would be much appreciated. Desertfae (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you check one more to make sure this isn't another sockpuppet please? Early_morning_person talk page. Another person is suspecting that they are a sockpuppet of Anne Teedham thanks for all your work on this :) Desertfae (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight on Banksy

This posting of a name and phone number may need to be oversighted. I have no idea if the information is accurate, as Banksy is anonymous, but the name and phone number are still private information clearly added for the purpose of disruption. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFO is the right place to request this -- I'm not up to date on the protocol. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Had I realized it was so simple, I would have done it in the first place. Ya learn somethin' new every day. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reminder

Hi. Thanks for the reminder, but there was no need. I wasn't planning on more edits. I only added comments to the discussion page. Is that still okay? I'm done with that page for a while. I wasn't aware that adding comments to the discussion page is an edit. However, I have said what I needed to for the day. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about the talk page; was talking about the article page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I originally thought. And no, I don't plan on more edits. By the way, I like your photos. I play the piano and some guitar myself. Love the dance photo with your wife. I hope to learn Tango next year. Great form. But, why is there a photo of the film Mr. and Mrs. Smith put up next to the one from Casablanca? Thanks for looking out for me.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The theme of the dance recital was Hollywood something or another. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

regarding this block

You might be interested in ProudAmerican93's user page. APK whisper in my ear 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CHU thanks

Heh. Certainly an easier way to do it than trying to ferry a reply to a SPI report. tedder (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard

Hey there, I was wondering what happened with the Karl Rove issue that had been up on the BLP noticeboard for so long. I went to check on it today and I don't see it. How do I find out what the resolution was? Is there a place on wikipedia that shows this? ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably just rolled off because nobody had anything further to comment on. Just go through the history of the article to find when it vanished. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Have a nice Christmas :) Malke 2010 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yellow badging

Thanks for that. His last edit to Poland has more or less convinced me that something needs to be done, but I'm not sure what, perhaps just keep a watch for a while. And is this a request to prove a negative? I'm away tomorrow or I might have taken this to ANI tonight. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz

In regards to this case, it is said that you ran a CU on both accounts. Could you please express your findings on such a matter? Different city? State? Country? Also, I personally don't wish the case to be closed, too many things don't add up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

.. What? I was asking you something..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm answering over at the SPI page...Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for unblocking

thanks for the unblock. re 'highly dynamic range' - i dont know much/anything about ip addresses, anything i can do? --Brunk500 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. If it happens often, you can ask for exemption from autoblocking, but don't worry about that unless a real problem arises. What I mean by "highly dynamic range" is that your IP address changes pretty often. It's common on DSL connections, for some reason or another, but it's nothing you have any control over. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ragusino

User:Mljet is yet another very obvious sock of User:Ragusino, could you quickly block the fellow pls? Its Christmas eve, he keeps editing, and I'd rather not go through all the red tape. By next day he will have vandalized more articles - more work for me :). Thanks in advance --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read this about user:Direktor:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DIREKTOR

Mljet ^(TALK) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.37.78 (talk)

I tried. It's totally incomprehensible. You might try learning about things like paragraphs, sentences, and readability. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the unique Ragusino style that gives him away each time. This is the sixth sock, I think. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kwanzaa

A Merry Kringle (or whatever) to you! Thank you for, as always, keeping an avuncular eye on Kwanzaa; but the would-be creators of Crackerpedia don't give up that easily, as we see in (for example) this rancid edit. You may wish to put Ron Karenga on your watchlist, if he's not there already. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been there for a while. Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That matter aside . . . odd how the most confident pronouncements on the language and its grammer are made by those who -- oh, whoops, right, NPA, AGF, alphabet soup. Hoary (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Self help mumbo-jumbo meets management mumbo-jumbo

Incidentally, would you think it would be harsh of me to call Goal setting a load of bollocks? I've already removed one spammy chunk from it (see its talk page) but the remainder strikes me as no better. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .... PS Holy intercoursing demiurge, something purporting to be an encyclopedia is calling this gibberish "scientific". I hardly know where to start. No, I don't want to start: let these management "gurus" have their time- and money-wasting seminars; with a bit of luck the suits who are forced to attend by their stupider bosses can manage to ignore the rubbish spouted at them and at the end of the day can get drunk and/or laid. Bah humbug! -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A fair amount of it seems lifted from this, though I suppose it's possible that that is just ripped from Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So either this article is lifted from what appears to be a Master's thesis (author's name removed, no bibliography), or the latter was lifted from Wikipedia. Grotesque either way. The thesis starts by telling us that According to Imogene King, Goal Attainment Theory is a dynamic interpersonal relationship [...] -- how the hell can a theory be a relationship? Meanwhile, the WP article starts Work on the theory of goal-setting suggests that it's an effective tool for making progress by ensuring that participants in a group with a common goal are clearly aware of what is expected from them if an objective is to be achieved. Huh? Does this stuff rot its authors' brains, or does it only attract people whose brains have already rotted? Either way, its aficionados are welcome to it! -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, a relationship can be a theory, so surely the reverse must be true as well. No? Yes? My brain hurts and it's not even 10. -- Zsero (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, surely not. A theory can postulate a relationship, or the existence of a relationship can be a theory. (It's past midnight here and the crap sourcing of Kwanzaa hasn't helped my mood much.) Anyway, Zsero, if you can help this "goal"-related bollocks in some way, all power to you: I know that if I tried I'd quickly explode in anger or laughter. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

re: External Links: Reports on and criticisms of Holocaust denial

Hi, Seasons Greetings! and thank you for the revision and comment on the external link: Critical Study of Holocaust Story Published in Japan - Institute for Historical Review. However I'd also like to note the incident and world wide media coverage at that time was quite extensive; and if suitable, would like to substitue it with another link: Holocaust Denial in Japan: Marco Polo Demonstrates Insensitivity - Japan Policy Research Institute, JPRI Critique Vol. II No. 3: March 1995. A revisionist incident involving a major conservative japanese media.

Revisionist views in general, may still have some major momentum among main-stream conservatives in Japan ja:ホロコースト否認, ja:日本の戦争犯罪, together with the denial of the Nanking Massacre (see The Truth about Nanjing, Japan ruling MPs call Nanjing massacre fabrication, 2007), Comfort women issues(see Comfort women#Abe controversy, [25]), and it's history in whole (see Japan's History Wars and Popular Consciousness - David McNeill, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus).

--Makesdark (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't objecting to the information; just to using IHR as a source for anything. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks confirming, have a nice day!--Makesdark (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Report of Threat

I would like to report a threat made against me on here. How do I do this? This person needs to be block. He threatened to hunt me down and cut my nuts off.76.177.133.247 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.138.232.253 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.133.247 (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please point me to where that threat is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He must have erased it. It is in the history. It all started over his editing and my editing of Alben Barkley. Barkley had an issue with income tax evasion. I found sources from after he died pointing to the fact the IRS took near half of his estate to pay for this. Barkley died in '56. This editor kept erasing my edits before finding an earlier source that makes his income tax evasion look "noble", because apparently Barkley took on some speaking engagements for pay in order to pay for his wife's health care. He has a source, but it can't be linked to for me to see, so I can't say that this is 100% true or not. Whatever the case, this does not change the fact the man did not pay taxes for income after his wife died and the IRS was getting ready to come down on him when he died, and did eventually come down on him through the estate. The sources I have found can be linked and apparently this guy wants to hide this, and if he can't hide it he want's to paint a rosy noble picture of someone who evaded paying tax.

Apparently after I told him I would contact authorities if he threatened me again, he went back and took that part out and said "whatever have it your way." I have no problem with his source being used along with the sources I have found. Can you please point me to help on noting multiple sources? Also, if a source can't be linked to can it be utilized. Thanks.76.177.133.247 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Found the edit, here it is, IMO, this is a blockable offense.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Invoked WP:IAR to simply delete the history, blocked the IP. tedder (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello jpgordon, Please go to my talk page and see what's been going on with this user. Can you help me, or do I post to the AN/I? This fellow seems to need a break from editing. Thanks.Malke2010 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) remarkably, it is this Daedalus969 that just earlier posted to your page. He started with this [26] and he's posted about a dozen times. He's using foul language, he's on a tangent. I finally asked him to stop but now he's much worse.Malke2010 02:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Nicely done, mis-labeling the facts there. You insulted me on another user's page and you expected to get off scott-free? My warning and followup was in regards to that post on CE's talk page by you. You know, the one where you insulted me and told him what my motivations are despite the fact you do not know. You can't just go around insulting and claiming to know the thoughts of others and expect to come out unscathed.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Secondly, yes, I am using the word shit. Using shit is not against policy. I have not called you any names, and I have not labeled your arguments as without reason, as you have me, wrongly.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Hello, I don't know what is motivating the jade falcon to interfer in this, but this fellow Daedalus969 needs to be blocked for these posts. [27]. This is just beyond what is reasonable anger. And frankly, what got him set off in the first place was he didn't like that I wrote, "added comment" in an edit summary of a message from him that I deleted from my talk page.Malke2010 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not here either. See this thread. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for noticing. I'm unsure how to proceed: the CU didn't report on the IP socks listed, but I don't want to nag if it is just a work in progress. Given the contribs from those IP socks its just ducky that they are the same as the named user account, but were used to avoid clear responsibility for the actions evoked by the "coaching".LeadSongDog come howl 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Functionalism versus intentionalism

I came across this watching recent changes. I'd like your opinion on this version of the article versus the present ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functionalism_versus_intentionalism&diff=335676608&oldid=335676493) version. I don't know enough of the subject to know which is better. I wanted to revert to the vesion with references, but honestly I didn't know if that would be a mistake. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Israel and other countries

Apologies for taking my time in responding to your question. I've been under some real life constraints and was also unsure on how to explain myself without making a seemingly delicate situation problematic. Anyways, I felt that extending the template to have a unique value for Israel alone while having a different value for other countries is (in my eyes, at least) in poor taste. There are many places when such changes can be made and I am not aware of any where such a solution is actually implemented.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Misconceptions2#Misconceptions2

I wondered if I could ask you to expand a bit on your findings to confirm how widespread the cross over between IPs wass with this user? If one IP is the main one with the the other ip used was only during the blocks it gives credence to this being two users, plus are their any occasions when the ips were being used separately to edit different articles at the same time? I realise CU isn't magic pixie dust but the answers to this would help disentangle if we had one or two editors here. Thanks for your help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh... I was having fun...

Jessica is fun to play with sometimes... Did you havta do that? --Jayron32 07:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole is how I have fun. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, *that* Jessica. Good times. Heh. tedder (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cherrylimerickey

>>One must wonder: why have you been autoblocked twice, on two different IPs, because of blocks upon User:Haida chieftain? Is it just coincidence that you've edited on different IPS, within minutes of each other as this editor? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)<<

All the editing I've done recently on Wikipedia - and virtually all the editing I've ever done - has been on public access terminals provided by the branches of my local library. Unfortunately one of the many other library patrons who avail themselves of this library service is evidently using poor judgement in his or her editing of Wikipedia causing these IP address autoblock issues that have effected me. That the IP address of the computer system in my local libraries is subject to change is an evident attribute of my local libraries' computer system that I really cannot comment on.--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Jpgordon, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

done--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Gigogag sock

Hello, Jpgordon. I noticed your recent edit to User:Dock26 Pwnage's talk page, and I was wondering what his "latest" sockpuppet was you were referring to. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be User:MagicZeus. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What article did he create that led you to believe he is a sock (just curious)? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No article. But I checkusered User:Dock26 Pwnage in response to his protestations of innocence, and noticed the brand new sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned

Hi, I see you have blocked this user for multiple account abuse, I have had a fair bit of connection with this editor in the recent week, I can't find the details could you please provide me with a link to the details, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:TwoHorned and User talk:AdvaitNirukta‎‎ should explain. In particular, the unblock requests. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block

I don't see how I'm supposed to deal with the situation. My defense on the sockpuppet page has been ignored and I have yet to receive a response even though the case is marked as closed. I can't appeal any of my blocks because I can't even edit my talk pages. I'm not allowed to start over and create a new account, even if I don't vandalize and make legitimate edits. I joined Wikipedia with User:NYyankees51 in May 2006 and had few problems since then, and now I'm blocked forever. I really have no idea what I'm supposed to do. 71.178.26.97 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep outing yourself by returning to the same articles. Perhaps that's not a wise approach. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Re [28], guessing its your turn next :).--Jac16888^Talk 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, guess I was wrong, neither of us--Jac16888^Talk 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

JpGordon

On December 9, 2009 you wrote the following in response to a comment on Harry Reid's talk page: "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere. And, since the polls quite clearly show the majority of Americans actually do favor that version of reform, we've no need to insert opinionated lies."

I'm very much offended by your statements. First of all, the polls did not "quite clearly show the majority of Americans" favored that version of reform. I looked up old polls and the first 5 I found stated that more Americans opposed it than supported it, while one was a dead heat. (None of those polls I found were from conservative-biased sources like Fox News either). You should really refrain from being so biased in how you deal with Wiki editing. He/she didn't insert any "opinionated lies". In fact he was very much correct (about the polls, nothing else). I don't even know why you had to put that last sentence in. Saying, "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere." The thing is I know you know this from looking at your talk page. You've done tons of edits. I've only been doing this for a couple of weeks really, and I know better than that.

That guy/gal you were responding to was very wrong as well. Now that it has been a couple of months since Reid's comments and they haven't come up in the news since, it appears his comments blew over and should definitely. He was most definitely unfamiliar with recentism issues and he was not assuming any sort of good faith. However, I don't think this excuses you from lashing out and making accusations.

I'm putting this here too, because, once again, I don't know if you'd ever read this comment if I put it on Reid's talk page.

Kgromann (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. Luckily, my edit comments don't go into articles, where such bias would be quite unacceptable. Like everyone else, I sometimes do express my biases on talk pages and comments. Hopefully, not too much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:CabbageBrain unblock request

I strongly oppose any unblocking of this account. The user created a new sock today, FrenchNerd487 (talk · contribs), and the user posted the exact same thing on the User talk:Gigogag page (of whom I just revoked his talk page access today and directed him to email unblock-en-l for any further requests). I recommend declining CabbageBrain's block and revoking that user's talk page access also. Regards, –MuZemike 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry; Gigogag wasn't even honest enough to list all of the socks. A five-second peek shows maybe half were listed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kearney's back!

Have a nice day! Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bye. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "Ironically" section on you userpage

Made me laugh. Thanks! Throwaway85 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Defender 911

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 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, ♠TomasBat 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad this got taken care of so easily. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, I apologize for the account creation. I just wanted to edit the Mohammad al Durah article under another name. I shoudn't have done that. Sorry. TwoHorned (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted; I hope you understand why the use of multiple accounts is not appreciated in a consensus-based community like this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it possible to destroy the account I created, I don't mean to use it ever. Thanks again. TwoHorned (talk)

Nope. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nauneim

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't this account a sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I misread checkuser results. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

King-Macca

Either User:Watchover or User:KAPITALIST88 (both are at the "Stravin" SPI for reference's sake). Orderinchaos 17:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How??

---

HOW????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoyouknowitsme (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

re User:YourBrain being blocked for socking

Are you prepared to confirm whether YourBrain was editing from a Texas location? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the three IPs involved was Texas, yes. The other two were same ISP, different location. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight

Are you around to do a quick one? -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really up to date on oversight policy or procedure now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I found someone. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet

Hi, I noticed you handled this editor's recent unblock request. After noticing some poor quality edits by the editor at a different article (Jehovah's Witnesses), I found the telephone article they'd also substantially contributed to, which has many problems regarding encyclopedic tone and presentation. I performed a copyedit of the article[29], but the editor objected, claiming the copyedit was vandalism, and reverted the article to their previous version[30]. The editor is proving difficult to deal with in discussion, and also attempted to provoke me via Wikipedia's e-mail function. Could you please take a look at the discussion on the editor's Talk page?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Sockdrawer - ArbCom Next?

Per your comment[31] on SPI, Checkuser User:Dominic has now confirmed the widespread Fairfield/MUM/TM-Org sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I've asked Will Beback [32], who commenced the SPI, what's the next step in this process.Fladrif (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement 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, –MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Read

Funny :). I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. So, wait, why did u ban me? I didn't make a single contribution! I am just getting started as a newbie to editing. --75.61.81.28 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just obvious, that's all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Transcendental Meditation movement/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/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For verifying this. My nose is usually pretty good. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Protest

I am returning to Wikipedia upon creating an account. The first course of action I must take is pursue defense of my actions on my previous account, 207.97.213.170. I was blocked by Materialscientist for 31 hours with the claim of "[d]isruptive editing". I am fully infuriated by such an unjust block. However, you dismissed my unblock request, saying that there was "no . . . chance [that I] have some magical right to vandalize until a particular number of warnings have been given". That is ridiculous. I protested and protested, but you refused to respect my opinion and failed to assume good faith. As an administrator, you should be cognizant of your responsibilities on Wikipedia. I am utterly ashamed of you. On the other hand, you ARE an administrator. Yes! Yes, that's it! You can push me around and slap me and whip me with impunity. That's how all administrators act. Good day, sir. I look forward to your response. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of your previous edits, more than one administrator will be on hand to observe and comment, and react as necessary. There will be no pushing, slapping, or whipping, just as there wasn't any last time. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to vandalize as you did previously, you'll get precisely the same treatment -- and you can consider yourself sufficiently warned that even a single act of vandalism will result in the permanent banning of this account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he same treatment"? If I continue to protest your actions, will you claim that again, I am disruptively editing? I have rights on Wikipedia, whether I'm an administrator or not, whether you like it or not. I will continue editing Wikipedia, striving to make it the place it used to be, before administrators were appointed to wreck havac and establish confining rules. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no "rights" on Wikipedia. You will continue to be treated as every other user is treated: if you post things such as talkback messages at the top of articles, you will be blocked for disruption. The "rules" you so disdain are based in community consensus. You're welcome to participate in such discussions. You may protest to your heart's content. But you may not disrupt Wikipedia, end of story. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony, you seem like the typical abusive administrator. "There are no 'rights' on Wikipedia"? Excuse me? What is the following?

This user is an Administrator,Checkuser, Oversight and ex-Arbitrator on the English Wikipedia.

Are those not "user rights"? Please tell me if I am mistaken. Back to the beginning of the story, how were my messages "disruptive"? As I said on my original talk page, I was merely "gifting users with new messages". Please explain how you find this disruptive. The last three words of your message just sets me off. Who do you think you are? "End of story"? You are not the highest level of authority here on Wikipedia. God help you if I appeal this to Jimbo Wales.

Secondly, why are you answering for Josh Gordon? He is supposedly an "Administrator,Checkuser, Oversight and ex-Arbitrator". He can talk for himself. Pity on him if he is dependent on others and cannot fare for himself. If you consider blocking me for "personal attacks," think twice. The above contains no personal attacks. Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. Your IP address was appropriately blocked for disruptive edits (there's no other way to describe them); this username has made no constructive edits other than yammering on my page. If you want to help create our encyclopedia, go right ahead; the sort of stuff you've done so far is unwelcome and unpleasant (not to mention misinformed and disingenous). At any rate, go bother someone else. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it in '08 and ill say it in '10

Is there any reason you blocked me or do you just like blocking innocent people?  Sub!  05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about or who you are; you've been blocked twice, for vandalism, but not by me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandwich

How many are authorized by Dean Young and how many unauthorized? Why would he allow such that have no mention of the comic strip? Pepso2 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they came first? Because Dagwood is just a name, not a trademark? Actually, that whole section should go, or be drastically shortened, or moved into Dagwood sandwich, or something. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI Kala Bethere

Oh, sorry, here is the list of [33] confirmed socks for The7thdr. I also posted it on the SPI in the CU section-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny110

I have reduced your block of Funny110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to one year. He appealed via unblock-en-l on the basis that he only did it because he thought it was funny. Fred Talk 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Err...

"Decline reason: "Please familiarize yourself with our rules regarding conflict of interest; nobody is allowed to write about themselves, their organizations, their employers, etc. on Wikipedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"" Unless I am misreading WP:COI, isn't that false? We discourage people in editing in areas they have a COI in; not prohibit them entirely, especially if they have useful information to add. NW (Talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be an overstatement -- but in this case, VOSS corporate has been messing with this article for a long time, from what I can tell. Problem is, every single corporate marketing department will tell us they have useful information to add to their company articles. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hiineedrequestforcomment returns

Hi, since you originally blocked User:Hiineedrequestforcomment, you may be interested in the thread I have just started at WP:ANI#Block review of The Reformed Editor. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your block of Crockadoc

You blocked Crockadoc (talk · contribs) for "abusing multiple accounts". Is there checkuser evidence, or good behavioral evidence? If so, could you please post an explanation somewhere (at the very least, a message on his talkpage or in his block log saying which blocked sockpuppeteer he's associated with)? Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The last twelve entries in my block log should explain. I don't know which particular Ref Desk troll it is, but this makes it pretty clear. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I had not noticed the other accounts. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Watching TCMSavolya (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

query

I'd really like to see this stopped: 1st this: [34] Then this: [35] Now this: [36] and this: [37] and the admin said this: [38] but he's not satisfied. Any suggestions? I'd really appreciate your comments. Thanks. Malke2010 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

You want me to continue using my old account? But sorry, I can't! You see, when I created my new account User:Bowei Huang 1, I changed the password of User:A1DF67 to some password that I do not know what it is and nobody knows what it is so I would be unable to get back into it. I can't get back into to my account! So I could now only use a new account now! I did the same to User:Bowei Huang and User:Brickfield. I also did the same to User:Bowei Huang 1 when I created the account User:An Unknown Person. Let me tell you the truth! I am telling you the truth! Can you please unblock this account because I cannot get back into my old account now even if I wanted to! I am not using multiple accounts because when I created a new account I made myself unable to get back into the old account! I do not have multiple account right now! So this is the only account I have right now. So can you please let me use this account or use another account but not use this account now?

Wikipedia says that you should not use more than one account at the same time, but it does not say that you should not create a new account if you are deciding not to use your old account ever again. So can you please let me create a new account if I am not deciding to use my old account ever again?

How did you know and find out that I was User:Bowei Huang? Can you please tell me and explain to me?

I didn't sign my tides from User:A1DF67 because I couldn't login to User:A1DF67 now anymore.

You can put an unblock request at User talk:An Unknown Person, and perhaps some admin with more patience than I will help you out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

check email. Thanks. Malke2010 20:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

more email.Malke2010 02:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I am unable to go back into User:A1DF67 or any of those other accounts, there is something I want to ask you to do. Instead of unblocking this account, there is something else I want to ask you to do. Can you please just simply let me and allow me or ask Wikipedia to let me and allow me to create and use a new account called User:Bowei Huang 2? This account would continue to be blocked but that would be the account that you or Wikipedia would let me use. I promise that after I do so, I would only use that account only and I would not create or use any other new accounts. That account would be my only account. That account would be the account I will be going to use. Can you please do that? Please?

You can put an unblock request at User talk:An Unknown Person, and perhaps some admin with more patience than I will help you out. Continuing to ask me here will not be helpful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

once more please

Thank you for archiving the wiki thing but someone else has commented.[39] Could please close it again? Maybe even make suggestions to all involved? Thanks.Malke2010 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not going to get into these sorts of conflicts, sorry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

understand, no worries. Malke2010 05:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

hell H^H^H^H^Heck

Hi Josh, As a 60 something Brit this makes no sense, although I did give it some thought when it was originally posted. But since your post I am curious to know what the joke is. Can you enlighten me? Best, Richard Avery (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article about it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Waah, that's serious geek humour, I'd never haver got that in millenia. Thanks for the pointer. Richard Avery (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe

• Hi, you confirmed me as using multiple account, which is not true. Could you kindly retrospect your decision. May I know on what grounds you confirmed my Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The checkuser results are quite obvious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned we may have fresh meat at the articles. Advice on how to proceed appreciated. See March 12 addendum at SPI. Thanks again. Esowteric+Talk 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire (clerk) suggested AN/I. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Falconkhe and User:Asikhi. Esowteric+Talk 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For Your Information, This Is A Shared IP Address

I want a proper apology for the comment you typed on the Bill Clinton Talk Page. This is a the only IP address for Hennepin County Libraries, if you didn't see the talk page for the IP address. Also, could I please become a registered user. Dr real (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You already are a registered user. And a blocked one, now, apparently. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Block

I was at an Internet cafe-type thing, and saw some guy on Wikipedia; so when he got off his computer, I decided to get on my account, since I hadn't for a while. He had left it on the page he had been on, so I logged in and edited that page first, because I thought it would be a helpful edit. That's why I was on right after a person who apparently was doing vandalism. I PROMISE I didn't do it. I only do helpful edits, to improve Wikipedia. :) P.S. I would recommend blocking the actual user who was doing the vandalism, not the IP address. Then he couldn't edit, but other people who get on that computer still could. :)

Mollymoon 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That actually makes sense to me. Anyway, the other clown is blocked. The IP address block was an autoblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Well you would be if this young sir had his way! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping!

Re, AGodBlessOurTroops's block log, could you please tell us who the sockmaster is so we can tag the page appropriately?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea who the master is; other socks include User:Asdqwersedfedfgw4 and User:Fv;lkdfwbv;ldfwk:LCVb. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I Am Offended By What You Told My Friend Dr Real

I live in Hennepin County, and Hennepin County Libraries have the same IP address. You told my friend he the was the same user who made a comment on the Bill Clinton talk page, and he was not. Daily, at least 300 people use these computers. Also, my home area has many Bill Clinton supporters, so don't assume that he was the only one who didn't see the Bill Clinton article and wanted to comment on a bad piece of content he saw. You also never know when a person will create a new account from a shared IP address, and you cannot automatic tell who the account because of the shared address The comment on the page was very offending and prejudice I suggest next time you look to see if IP addresses are shared before you tell people they are the same person, and respect the good faith policy.Tyyp (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We're fully aware it's a public computer; we're also real good at recognizing people pretending to be multiple users when they're actually the same person. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Gordon, This is a shared IP Address

I was typing a complaint on the Wikiquette page, and I noticed a user named Dr real was complaining that you personally attacked him for my comment.204.169.161.1 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) This IP address belongs to Hennepin County Libraries, and is a public computer.204.169.161.1 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, the more times you pretend to be someone else, the more obvious it becomes that it's one person doing all the typing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Tell me, how are you able to tell who's who on a shared IP address.204.169.161.1 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You Can't Just Trace Beyound The IP Address, Can You?

I'd like to know how a genius like me was able to be found. It was the perfect plan.204.169.161.1 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We've secretly installed webcams in every library computer in the country. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hush! Don't give away our trade secrets. Like the similarly-installed fingerprint/DNA detector. Oops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another User:Polylepsis sock

I'd like to point out user:Einkleinestier seems to be restoring the reverted edits of user:THEQUEEN99. 88.106.83.219 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Caller ID is a great invention. It has saved me from many an abusive caller and/or telemarketer. As far as your being "outed", I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that you're a part of the Gordon family tree.
You could mock the character that tried to give too much info by having one of your pictures captioned, "This is me on an outing..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

98.122.100.249

98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While I've got your unmultiplied attention, is it appropriate for a blocked IP to be totally blanking his talk page? My claim there was that others might have that IP (though that might be doubtful) and would want to know why it was blocked. But I don't feel like getting into a stupid edit war over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the IP is unshared, so it's not worth the typing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nusrullah Khan Noori

Hi, keep up the good work :) Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori did you mean socks of Iamsaa? Typo? Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can this be looked at ASAP please? Frankly i am attempting to mediate an edit conflict between User:Iadrian and User:Squash Racket regarding the John Hunyadi article. Besides, The IP's mentioned in that AFD are both registered in Pakistan - quite visible after a simple WHOIS lookup. All of Iadrian's IP's are based in Serbia, which is quite in line with his editing habit. If nothing else, i would deem it strange that he suddenly tries to keep an article related to pakistan. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See Iadrian's talk page. JP has been on Iamsaa's case for sock puppeting from Pakistan. Also accord with AfD article edit history. Esowteric+Talk 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I unblocked Iadrian yu (talk · contribs) on the liklihood that this was a bit of a mixup...feel free to revert as a double-check of the situation would indicate. Cheers, — Scientizzle 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah. I muddled this completely. Sorry all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  Ia... thinking it may have been auto-complete :)? Esowteric+Talk 10:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  Auto-complete in my brain, perhaps! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BICRO

Hi, Jp. I was helping to create this via a user subpage and I basically removed the promotional content; you should have seen it before I edited it.  :) Anyway, the organization in question is part of the Croatian Government and not private enterprise. Could I impose on you to review the deletion log and perhaps restore the content? If it's still too promotional for inclusion, just let me know what you feel needs to be done and I'll clean it up on the subpage. Thanks! Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still nowhere near ready for prime time; it's agency-jargon stuff now, still not encyclopedia form. At the very least, you'll need at least one source that's not that of the agency, I think. As it is, it still reads like an ad in a financial magazine. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I raised by IP

Hi JP, an IP has raised an AN/I about SPS concerns at the Iamsaa-related articles here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Guess who?! Since Iamsaa is peppering the site with several IP addresses, is there a reasonable range block that might be applied? — Scientizzle 13:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope. Too much collateral damage. He's easily recognizable, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

WP:AN#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BICRO

Hi Josh,
I was approached by the original author of BICRO (which you speedied as blatant promotion), asking me for help with it. Apparently, PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) had helped him prepare it at User:Ivan Pakšec/BICRO from an original draft. From a look at it, that is a government program, under their Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, and the editor doesn't appear to be strongly associated with it. It looks salvageable, I'd say, if only a few of the more blatant fragments are removed, or thrown out. Would you mind if I restored it, and took care of that? The userspace draft will need moving over as well, for attribution.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the above section, and had already asked the author for some WP:RS anyways. :) Amalthea 12:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: who is...

Re your message: Not really sure. I noticed your re-blocking of somebody caught up in my autoblock. I was going to say that the original account was User:Marytrotter, but I'm beginning to wonder if it is User:DailyWikiHelp. I was just about to file a CU, but do you want to look instead?

All of these are related:

• Marytrotter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Controller Good (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Denamna hUGH (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cookepedia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WikiDriversMe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Encylopediasserver (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 116.14.105.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.7.19.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Same ISP as this one:

• 219.74.135.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

...whom DailyWikiHelp was busy reverting. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Hah. I didn't notice that with the IP. He's so blocked forever; indeed, that was DailyWikiHelp edit warring with himself. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly related: b:User talk:DailyWikiHelp filled with references to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Free Belarus. No idea why. Wknight94 ^talk 13:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like a good hand/bad hand. Anyways, SPI/CU filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DailyWikiHelp just in case. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:174.19.105.161

I don't think this vandal has really learned any lessons. Take a look at his deleted edits. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this question/comment of mine on a six-month block. -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP has no deleted edits. This seems quite inappropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Bearian has learned any lesson. See my follow-up message on his talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unreal Engine 5

Hi there Jpgordon, thank you very much for preforming a check on this case. I've left a note there asking whether or not Unreal Engine 5 (talk · contribs) is related to Dr Roots (talk · contribs). Please take a look in your own time. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Gordon, You Better Have A Good Explanation For Being Able To Identify My Account At A Hennepin County Library.

If you don't find a good, legal explanation to explain yourself, I will inform the police. Also, don't you dare bother to erase your comments, or even erase your record, because I have printed them out on paper.70.13.18.78 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I was only luring you into confessing this with the comments I typed two weeks ago. You made a stupid move by saying that you knew it was a public computer and that Wikipedia has special ways of being able to detect users.70.13.18.78 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Also, don't try to say my writing styles were easy to match, and all, I said, as Dr real, was I agree. I am training myself to become a cop, so don't think you will escape without giving me a good explanation. Since practically the beginning, I was only making myself look like a Sockpuppet so you would talk.70.13.18.78 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) It's called good detective work.70.13.18.78 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_II Gerardw (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Was concurrently reported to WP:AN and user blocked. Gerardw (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner

Were there any sleeper socks found, or are you not done yet? CTJF83 chat 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nothing new, as I said. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Rin tin tin 1996

Hello Jpgordon. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Tim Song (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with AGF here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Italian colonization of Americas

Could I ask you to look at this page? I have never asked for a checkuser investigation and don't know if it would be helpful there. Rmhermen (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean, like, for determining that User:Spalatino and User:BdLM and User:Remus10 and User:Keatingbeach and User:3leopard are all the same person? Yeah. Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help. I was a bit hesitant to proceed as I don't know whether we consider evidence from other Wikiprojects when determining such things. Rmhermen (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's not like someone who behaves badly on one project won't do the same elsewhere; that he'd been dinged repeatedly for socking elsewhere is actually a common reason for doing a checkuser (and one of the main reasons we have a checkuser mailing list -- to keep an eye on inter-wiki nuisances.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

and now for some reason I'm in the mood for manicotti.... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

APOLOGY

jpgordon,You are such a nice administrator,please forgive me if i did anything wrong,sir i accept that i did many mistakes and repeated them again and again,But sir from last one month i am asking for one last chance to me,i will not repeat or disrupt any wikipedia policy,i promise you,please give me last chance,If i ever repeat my mistake then block me and never responce too,Sir you should remove crime not criminals,I hope you will give me last and final chance--{user|mkbdtu} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.93.179 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Really too late for that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

sir i promise you if you unblock me first of all i will not edit any article for 3 months,i will ask my query on talk page only,sir i was new in wikipedia,i didnot understand how my foolishness can take me faraway from wikipedia,sir I have realised that I was wrong,Sir Now i have learned all rules,I promise you i will never repeat mmy mistake,Sir i am a student and had naughty mind so i did that kind of disruption,but now i realise that it will harm my career on wikipedia,Sir My last hope is you,please forgive me and tell me solution to me,I will be gratefull to you,May god bless you}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.50.57 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You just repeated your mistake again. Please direct further requests to the unblock mailing list; your current approach is just digging you in deeper. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for guidin me,will they hear my request--115.242.50.57 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another blatant Brunodam sock.

Hello JP, further to your recent blocking of User:Spalatino et al, there's another blatant User:Brunodam sock. See Special:Contributions/U-1948 - this "new" user's only contributions so far have been to restore one of Bruno's old articles [40]. I can open an SPI if you think it's appropriate, but it's rather backlogged and this one's sufficiently obvious to be nuked without further ado, I suspect. Please let me know if you disagree, and I'll open an SPI in the normal way. In addition, User:Rubinmar is also Bruno, as evidenced by his/her being one of those, like User:3leopard, who appeared as if by magic to support the removal of the POV tag from the article on the Thornton expedition - see [41]. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Both dealt with, another found. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ruminot as well, this guy's on a roll. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Rademire2

I'm sure that's what I should have done. I'm not that familiar with Wiki coding, I just pick stuff up by finding it somewhere and copy pasting. I'm guessing the "t" in hat is top and the "b" in hab is bottom? Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "Hide archive top" or something like that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh ok, that makes sense then. Thanks! Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More Brunodam

Hello JP, there are two more User:Brunodam accounts, User:Sanfeliciano and User:1992Boca. Sanfeliciano ties to 207.69.xxx.xx [42][43][44], a known Bruno IP [45], and welcomes User:1992Boca within hours of his arrival [46], who then goes on to focus on Italian irredentist articles [47], all of which were originally created by Bruno [48][49][50]. Once again, if you think it appropriate, I will take the two accounts to SPI, but I think they are blatant enough to be nuked without further ado. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Routine sweep finds those two as well as User:ForTanthalas and User:BDA2. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI comment question

Regards this comment, do you think the behavioural evidence is sufficient to block? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't look at the behavioural evidence. It's not like ResearchEditor's style is hard to detect, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Made that very point today. Twice. [51] [52] Is there a policy or guideline on blocking purely based on behavioural evidence? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:DUCK. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Delightful. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that I just came back after a wikibreak since November 2008 and Areftipo (a meat puppet of Research Editor/Abuse Truth?) is edit warring again in SRA (!!). I am tempted to revert him again but perhaps it's better to complain here? Cheers, --Cesar Tort 04:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, enough. I've blocked him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockmaster Iamsaa

Banned Iamsaa (talk · contribs) is still claiming that he has nothing to do with the edit warring and sock puppetry which is still rife in the Younus AlGohar-related articles and redirects.

If you have a free mo', is there any way you can link the recent IPs which follow to Iamsaa (who also edited his talk page later today)?

• Iamsaa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 116.71.15.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 116.71.24.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 116.71.8.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Or should I file a checkuser instead? Sorry, not hot on correct protocol.

On reflection, I'll go through official checkuser channels.

Many thanks in advance, Esowteric+Talk 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa. Regards. Esowteric+Talk 13:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance you could do a quick check on Divine truths (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? — Scientizzle 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to technically connect Divine truths with Iamsaa. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. New account w/ interest in exactly the same areas seemed suspicious (as does the recent return of Kamranhg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)...). I'll jump in if either starts getting disruptive. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Republican cunt

Fuck off and die old man

I don't think I've ever been so insulted. "Republican"? How dare you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was legitimately funny. Can we add it to WP:CIV as an example of "How to deal with incivility"? MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

links

Hi, the links you refer to lead to pages with unnecessarily explicit content, so I suggest it would make sense either to replace the offending photographs with diagrams, remove the links to such pages, or at least give a warning to the unsuspecting user. Where I come from most people don't appreciate being subjected to such imagery! Cheers Ben Dawid (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hello! I hope that you are doing well! It's been a while since I contacted you. If you can, could you please delete this picture [53] that I uploaded sometime ago. I am guessing that you are still an administrator with the power to do this. I wish to appear more anonymous on Wikipedia. Your Wikifriend, David--Drboisclair (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, good friend.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Pages

User:A1DF67 has been renamed User:Bowei Huang 2. [54] Can you please redirect User:Bowei Huang to User:Bowei Huang 2 and User talk:Bowei Huang to User talk:Bowei Huang 2?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd rather not deal with you and your desires at all. Ask someone else. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Private filters

Just as an FYI of sorts, other than the problem described at bugzilla:22033, "EFM" should not be required by those with +sysop to view private filters. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was exactly what I was encountering. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wish they would fix it... –xeno^talk 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Monkees

Sorry about that, I was going to put Davidmedlar's signature on it, but then I had to leave. I think your solution is better. :) NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My magical powers of AGF are wearing a bit thin there, I must say. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

The two edits you link in the report don't match up. Slight error? The report has been archived.. but, could you fix it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Those edits are on the same IP, one just a few minutes after the other, by each of the candidates. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you meant something else. Nevermind.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Shockmetric

Have I missed something here? No Checkuser evidence that I can see. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit and this edit were made on the same IP a minute apart from each other; the conclusion seems clear. Am I missing some subtlety? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, if you saw it and I didn't, because I don't have the magic pixie dust, that's fine. It's just that Shockmetric seemed an OK editor to me. Carry on. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out -- I've goofed a couple of times recently, which makes me even more happy than usual to have people looking over my shoulder. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Since you're more technically aware than I on these issues, could you take a look at his unblock request? You might want to check the IP he's recently used, FWTW. Rodhullandemu 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Answered over there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, it's all just too convenient, so I've declined. Rodhullandemu 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a joke right,,,

User:Blackmagic24084 is a sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85 and so is User:Blackmagic2604

I am a little angry at this I mean Blackmagic24084 is a user-name I am known to use on different sites. To the point look here

Where she said It's NOT, such as with the whatever Blackmagic2604 page. That was probably YOU creating the account to screw up your own userpage, then blame it on me.

And yet here you caught her as that account... Now why would I make Blackmagic2604? I can't stand zero posters on forums so why would I make a account for a one time use.. thats right I wouldn't .. She has gone to far I'm telling you I am on the brink of emotional collapse. That girl is breaking the barrier which is keeping my anger from hurting people...

I am sorry for typing this to you its just she created two accounts Blackmagic24084 and Blackmagic2604 and then tried to blame me for the vandalism. I am down right annoyed, upset... steaming .. again I am sorry for telling you all this I just needed someone to talk to ... and Thank You for putting a stop to her.. Moukity (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		From sock blocking, to arbitration, to ANI, to talk pages, to plain ol' editing, in every situation, irrespective of namespace, action, result or intent, every opportunity I have had to interact with or witness your actions, has resulted in a superb outcome. I very much appreciate all the work you do and have done on Wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Be a bit wary, though -- have you actually looked at the destiny of some of those who gave me barnstars? (That might be why yours is the first in a couple of years.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh...I hadn't and now I'm worried...of course, I've already been through an arbitration hearing with you on the arbing side, so how bad could it get?

I'll try exercising the better part of valour now. Still appreciate the good work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh - if I share their fate, doubtless it will be because I deserve it. I trust the community to get it right (eventually). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys. We are still having fun in Satanic Ritual Abuse. RE is baack... Cesar Tort 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not even trying, is he? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RivenMythrunner

RivenMythrunner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has emailed me claiming that he was editing through a proxy due to military service and was mistakenly blocked as a WiccaWeb sock. As you are the CU who ran the check, can you take another look? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe it. He didn't quite fit; feel free to unblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat Insulted

By your response to me here. Excuse me, do not abate the validity of my appeal. My misuse of the convention was justifiable, and therefore does not constitute abuse (barring the fact that I've potentially made an unnecessary entry in a master data table with my injurious use of a dedicated template). If you believe I wasted your time, that's your prerogative, but I believe my time is worth as much as yours.

If it was not your intention to offend me, then you should not so quickly dismiss someone with a vainglorious reprisal for having wasted a dedicated resource. If you feel my misuse of the template was more injurious to the project than that which I'm appealing against then perhaps you should reexamine your intention in volunteering. Finally; if you lack the wealth of time required to be tactful, then again, reexamine your intention in volunteering. I have a couple of friends who spend as much time doing administrative work on Wikipedia as anyone, and I am sure each of them is able to find the time to exercise sagacity in their reprisals. I know for a fact that tact does not require an advanced degree, nor does the latter bar someone from being impetuous. >:| Jamouse (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We go through dozens of legitimate and illegitimate unblock requests per day. We spend a lot of time and attention on people who have actual problems that can be solved by examining their cases and seeing what can and should be done. We also spend a lot of time on brats and other vandals trying to justify their behavior. The unblock template has a specific purpose; there are other ways to contact administrators, as you seem to know. Since you have those "couple of friends", and since you have an non-blocked account, you had many other options to call attention to the problems at that IP. You just picked the one likely to get a cold response; and I happened to be the first person to stumble on it; I venture any of the other people monitoring the unblock category would have given your request less than the attention you think it deserves. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI.......the complaining editor posted this on the Klan talk page.

Hello, Jpgordon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On Pseudo-Jessica...

Yeah, I concur. Since its at least two of us that agree that behaviorally, it likely isn't him, AND that Hersfold is unavailible, I think an unblock (and apology) may be in order. --Jayron32 05:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Could you please look at this SPI and block the underlying IP? They won't stop and Shirik will likely leave soon, leaving a mess. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Scads of Tor nodes, now blocked, but I imagine he'll find more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. Are you done or still investigating? Just asking because it seems to have calmed down right now and I figured I might as well close it if you've blocked the nodes and he's not persisting right now. I've also gone and set up a test filter already to see if we can detect it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm done; I probably got all of them from that report. I'm just surprised it took me so long to notice they were Tor; what with the proxybot, I've not run into a Tor node while checkusering in a real long time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it back, we seem to have another hit you may wish to take a look at. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could I bother you to take a look at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick Checkuser requests? Thanks, –xeno^talk 16:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Was that based on just experience or was there any checking done? I wondered if it showed any relation to the sockpuppeteer in question... –xeno^talk 17:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look. Of course it's the same IP, but we knew that all along. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I just thought there was some other details (useragent, etc.) that might be telling. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DailyWikiHelp

Hi Jpgordon, just stopping by to let you know I've left you a message at the above case, please take a look whenever is convenient for you. Thanks for running a check on the case. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you very much, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Paligun

Hi. Since you've been dealing with socks of this user before, I thought that maybe I could save people's time at SPI requests page and ask you directly to check another suspicious account. Could you please check if Ionidasz (talk · contribs) has any connection to Paligun (talk · contribs), as it is very strange for a brand new account to follow me to an obscure discussion board and post a message there. It could also be another banned user, Hetoum I (talk · contribs). I can post another SPI request, if needed. Thanks very much. Grandmaster 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If CU is run I will report a CU run on shaky grounds. Users have the right to create a second account to not associate their main account with contributions on controversial topics. Not even a contribution, just a slight comment on a project page and there is no rational to run a CU under that basis. If he thinks there is, he should request a formal CU. I was even not interested editing more on that project page, even less in the concerned articles. I just gave my opinion. What's that, one edit, and you're good for a CU. What happened to AGF? -Ionidasz (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And as strange as it seems, it's not an obscure discussion, he posted it on the Administrators' notice boards section on Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. -Ionidasz (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This user did not show up on a routine checkuser sweep of Paligun and his socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. How about another usual suspect, Hetoum I (talk · contribs)? I probably need to file an SPI for that, since you were not involved in check up of that one. It's usually one of those two. I would really be glad to be wrong, but I'm usually not. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. Grandmaster 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A SPI under the basis that I am commenting in a section on Administrators' notice board? Good grief Grandmaster, I'm not picking a fight. I told you I had no intention contributing on the subjets you're interested with. I'm not them and won't waste my time proving I'm not, not sufficiently motivated for that. Anyhow, I'm done commenting, so you're not going to waste my time, neither I will waste yours. Ionidasz (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you have nothing to worry about, SPI will show no connection. I will sincerely apologize if you have nothing to do with the banned users. But the level of disruption in AA topics requires to treat new accounts with suspicion, especially the ones that know their way around Wikipedia too well for a newbie. Grandmaster 05:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The level of disruption in AA does not justify requesting a CU for a user who has zero contribution in those articles neither their talkpage. And you still claim that I am a newibie, when I wrote that I am not and explained why this account. CU is not for fishing and runing a CU without providing any evidences as to why a user is believed to be a banned user X or Y should not be allowed. You requested a CU on the ground that it's fishy a newbie will find his way. Since I explained from the start that I am not a newbie and did not edit any of those articles, you failed to explain how this applies to me. Go ahead, request a recheck of this Hetoum socks, to see if my name will come up. That's not what you did, you requested a check on my name with Hetoums' socks. Even if I am not him, my primary account will be known by the CU when I did nothing, absolutly nothing wrong. For God sake, I did not even edit those articles!!! Ionidasz (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going any further with this. So take this discussion elsewhere if anywhere. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 188.225.180.251

Would it be appropriate to block his talk page access? It isn't quite encouraging to see his response to the block to be added personal attacks like "kiss my ass you filthy zionist". Breein1007 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Entirely appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

More Brunodam

Hello Jp, I hope you are well. I've come across two more of Bruno's alteregos. User:N48 and User:Researcheronly. I suspect this game may go on and on. Do please let me know if you would like me to take it somewhere else for administration. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of subtlety there, it seems. Bang, bang. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much, I agree. Your work is much appreciated. Many thanks as always :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman

I strongly resent your ad hominem attack and will be reporting you to Wikipedia for the personal attack. It is unacceptable and I cite ALL Wikipedia statutes on etiquette which you have categorically violated.

Let me give you a little history lesson:

I first placed the Goldman Sachs info on the Whitman bio page many months ago since it is material info about this person that had NOT been provided in the creation of her corporate history. Yet, on TWO separate occasions, that Goldman Sachs info was expunged from Wikipedia by various editors, and only when I interfered in the matter, was the material replaced, on the grounds of NPOV.

The fact that links placed on this page pertaining to her Goldman Sachs connections have been expunged and/or modified to prevent readers discerning her involvement with the company is pure VANDALISM. It is designed to omit a material chapter in her corporate involvements.

When I report an unwarranted link modification, I sure as hell do NOT need a lecture about NPOV from the likes of you. Consider yourself reported.

BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

To whom, and where, please? And, regarding your allegations of conflict of interest -- yeah, I worked at eBay; it doesn't mean I like Meg Whitman at all. Rather the opposite; I wish I was currently a California resident so I could vote against her; I've voted for Jerry Brown every opportunity I've had over the past 40 years, and would love to again. On the other hand, I get to work to keep Harry Reid in office. There's much else I could say about Meg Whitman, but it would violate Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're just antsy 'cause you don't have anything worth bartering for medical care. :P MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

<snort> --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hetoum I SPI case

I was the one who endorsed the CU on that case. I see you and I share the opinion that creating a sock to comment on other editors in wikispace is not a legitimate use of a sock. I actually thought that was written in policy somewhere, but now I can't seem to find it. The only relevant policy I can find is regarding SPA and "good hand/bad hand" socks. But in my mind, creating a sock to complain about another user in wikispace should not be legitimate. I like to think our due process should include the right to face one's accuser. Your thoughts? Respond here if you like. Auntie E. (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it legit, but it's not really a blocking offense either -- it's something to bring up on AN/I, perhaps. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Permanently banned editor editing anonymously

Honorable collegue, user:ptmccain, permanently banned editor is again editing the Book of Concord article. His new anonymous address is 70.253.172.5. I reverted his edits, which were not only obviously "illegal" but also inferior. This article MAY need protection as it is one of his pets. It appears that he has put in internet links to his website and blog. Even if his edits were superior, they should not be allowed to stand because he is permanently banned by Jimmy Wales, et alii. With kindest regards,--Drboisclair (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anne Teedham sock puppets

I suspect we have a few more Anne Teedham sock puppets starting up. Would you mind looking into these users? They are just getting started tampering with pages related to the ones the Anne Teedham socks were vandalizing. No major damage yet. 24.170.242.101, 24.170.225.180, 24.49.51.81 Thanks for your efforts! Winksatfriend (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend

Hmm? Contributions/24.170.242.101 hasn't edited since 2009; Contributions/24.170.225.180 since January; and Contributions/24.49.51.81 since March. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the original Teedham socks was 24.170.224.225 another was Hag2. 24.170.242.101 and 24.29.51.81 are also both out of Hagerstown, MD. One of them was offended by a Teedham sockpuppet notice and removed it. I'm not worried about that, just think it is suspicious in light of the server it's coming from. If you don't think there's enough to be concerned about, I'm okay with your decision, but please be aware that the Teedham socks accused one vandalism target, Michael Riconosciuto, of three homicides and left a note on Lex Coleman discussion indicating that alterations were being made at the request of an employer, and were being made from the employer's IP. As there are past and current homicide investigations for which Riconosciuto is a witness and has provided extensive documentation, this is a serious problem. I think the water is being tested, so to speak, and anticipate another flareup of activity. Winksatfriend (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend