User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 31st August 2007

user:Bullamail

You warned him for vandalizing articles and user pages before [1] and notified me that you did. He has not stopped since then and has continued [2], also doing the same thing as ip in another article (I am sure that it is him, since the edits are almost simultaneous with edits to Chittisinghpura massacre)[3][4]. If you look at his "factually correct" version, you wil notice that he inserts troll comments intended to disparage Hindus, as well as misrepresentations of previously cited sources. Misrepresentations that are so obvious that I do not think an assumption of good faith is warranted and simply treat as vandalism.What should I do? Can you do something? Birdsmight 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

user:80.193.52.27

Hi TigerShark,

Are you sure User:80.193.52.27 shouldn't be blocked? They only have three legitimate edits in their entire history. It's true that they haven't vandalized in the past few hours. But is there ever a point at which a pure, but not rapid, vandal gets blocked?

Thanks. --Allen 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This one is in a bit of a grey-area. Although all of the edis from the IP do seem to be vandalism and the IP has been blocked twice in the last few weeks, there is not a large volume of edits and they have currently stopped. I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt that they might have finally stopped, but I will keep an eye on them. Cheers TigerShark 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! --Allen 20:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User: 208.39.164.12

Thanks for your quick reply. I had also messaged another admin (Kuru) who has been a reliable help in the past. He informs me that he the IP address has been warned ... just waiting for the user to screw up again. D-Hell-pers 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple edits, etc.

Thanks for the tipoff. See my comments on User talk:John Reaves. --Cbdorsett 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at your comment, and it is fully understandable that you acted as you initially did - it can be very disconcerting when you see questionable edits being made so quickly. Cheers TigerShark 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Take a look at this one: Special:Contributions/124.186.228.126 --Cbdorsett 11:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have blocked them for 24 hours, they have had plenty of warnings that those edits are non-constructive and that they risked being blocked. Cheers TigerShark 11:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Frigidity

Re this edit: what assertion of notability did the article make? I cannot see any. -- RHaworth 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User Eastlake

Hi can you help me stop this guy putting a vanity published work on Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. thanks Tony 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

Page blanking

I was not aware of such acts of vandalism! I cannot deny that it was my account that was used but I can assure you that it was not me that did it. Several people use my PC so I will give them a grilling about it. Hope all is well in your part of the world! Cls14 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

not too far off Shenme 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Magnavoxodyssey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Magnavoxodyssey.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KonstableSock 13:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The author of the picture has been found and contacted. Awaiting permission. --Marty Goldberg 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Vunvjorhimm and socks

Hi. Regarding the WP:AIV request you denied earlier [5], there are now massive numbers of sockpuppets of the original user (already warned many times) showing up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entarians voting Keep, when every legitimate user so far has agreed it is a hoax. Same guys are also otherwise going around leaving comments on talk pages to try to make people think the hoax is real. Are you allowed to take some action or do I have to go through the full WP:SSP process?

• Vunvjorhimm (talk · contribs) [6][7]
• Hessosuwonae (talk · contribs) [8]
• 153.90.117.3 (talk · contribs) [9]
• 153.90.125.166 (talk · contribs) This comment [10] on Talk:Koreans almost identical to what Vunvjorhimm said on the Afd
• Flyingdannish (talk · contribs) [11]

Incidentally, on the AfD, Hessosuwonae writes some nonsense alleged to be "Entarian language"; this is obviously misspelled Korean, and if it were a real language, linguists who have been searching for relatives of Korean for years and trying to prove the Altaic hypothesis, e.g. Sergei Starostin, would have obviously noticed its similarities to Korean by now and made themselves world-famous by publishing papers about it. Thanks, cab 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Unless these apparent sockpuppets are causing real damage now, I think that it is best to raise this at WP:SPP. It seems fairly clearcut, but it is obvious that the socks are likely coming from a dynamic IP (hence the two IP addresses). It is also possible that these are mutiple users (kids at a school), so should probably be investigated properly. I will keep an eye on the AFD but I wouldn't worry, there is no way that the closing admin will not take into account the sock like activity, and the articles will get deleted (it is annoying that current policy means we have to go through this process). Cheers TigerShark 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Trollsrule

Can you please turn autoblock on for this user? The account was created by Jellybellytroll, so it was definitely on purpose, and the user knows it's a violation. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a reason that you are sure it is the same person? There is only one contribution between the two of them, so I would prefer to err on the side of caution, but please let me know if you have any more info, or if similar accounts keep getting generated. Cheers TigerShark 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1,000,000% sure. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I don't see that more accounts have been created since, so I am loathed to autoblock what could be a shared IP. However, please let me know if you see any more related activity. Cheers TigerShark 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well..

Well... with respect your asking a lot their, I only just got it the way it really suits me, its biased on User:Radiant!'s signature and I quite like it, I'd like to help but I dont think its imperative is it?Tellyaddict 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not imperative, but it does make life more difficult for other editors [12], with the only benefit being that you prefer it. If you really want to keep it that way, I don't have a big problem, but I just personally think that the priority should be not impacting the work of others. You are correct that Radiant's signature is very similar and, for what it is worth, I think that they should also change (for the same reason) - I have just not come across a situation where that sig caused me a problem. Cheers TigerShark 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll see what I can do, I cant promise I'll do anything however I do value your opinion and your comments, thanks - Tellyaddict 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, take care. TigerShark 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You too and I hope you and your family have a nice Easter and April fools day! Cheers - Tellyaddict 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of 64.126.142.67

Grrrr, you beat me in a block conflict! Way to be. Teke 19:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AskAnais

The user has been making non-sense pages, and that is their only edits. The pages are being marked for deletion, and since there deleted it shows no edits in their contributions. As for them being re-created I haven't seen them being re-created, but the user did make a new page after being warned, it was a different page. In the future I'll warn, and mark for deletion after someone has seen the page. If I did something wrong in the process wrong please let me know, I'm always willing to learn new things. Inter16 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a small side note, I have been noticing after being warned a user is still using their talk page as a forum (User talk:Shortie1018), what is the best way to go about handling a situation like this? Thanks Inter16 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ever since I can remember I have been popin' my collar. But that is not the point. The point is more along the lines of gay sex. It is what makes the world go round but not really. I hope you have become a better person from reading my story. It is very important and special to me. So anyways, I'm in class right now and I'm about, gay sex=global warming.

RE:removong images

Hello, TigerShark, Thanks for your message. I'm not removing the images I uploaded to Wikipedia(I wish I could, but I cannot), I'm just removing my own images from the pages I posted them myself. Anybody could edit Wikipedia pages. The images are still at Wikipedia and could be placed back to the pages with only one click of a mice, but I'm not going to be the one to make that click. Best regards. Mbz1 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Well, I'm finished removing the pictures, but you know what is really funny about all that.

Few days ago I added that image to toy dogs page. Guess what, user Jerazol removed it 30 minutes later what do you think for? For vandalism. I'm still not sure why the picture of a cute, toy dog was removed from Toy dog page and I have no idea how one could have called it "vandalism". This is only one example of Wikipedia users removing my pictures. That's why I prefer to do it myself without "freindly" edits in History. When I came to Wikipedia, my only goal was to share my pictures with Wikipedia readers. I wanted as many people as possible to see my pictures because at least some of them are rare and could have some encyclopedic value. I was planning to upload many more more or less rare images to Wikipedia. I'm not going to do it any more. Maybe I will upload some of my new pictures to Wikipedia, but I'm not going to post any of them to any pages. If you wish to block me for vandalism go ahead. I do not really care any more. Oh, and by the way have you noticed, I'm not only removing images, I'm putting the other peole images, which I removed earlier right back. For example, the first image on that page that I removed few weeks ago is now back in all its glory! Best regards.

Best regards. Mbz1 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

How about adressing my concerns?

Hi TigerShark, I was hoping to get a reply from you about my concerns too, but it never came. I assume it is OK with you that user Jerazol removed my image from toy dogs for "vandalism"? Why din't you restored that image, becuse it was removed by user Jerazol and not by user Mbz1? Or maybe you're agree that the image should have been removed for "vandalism"?

I also wonder why that image is stays intact? It is a very,very low resolution image with the photographer name written over even that low resolution image. If you enter a photographer site , you see he sells his pictures. Does he use Wikipedia to promote his sales and is it OK with Wikipedia? Thanks. Mbz1 14:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Block after Vandalism

Thank you very much, TigerShark, for your swift solution for the recent vandal of the Woodbridge Senior High School article. I appreciate your diligence. Bhs itrt 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wonder?

Hi, again, TigerShark, I just wonder why you've never got back to me to reply my questios. Is the only way to atract your atention is removing images from Wikipedia pages? Oh, yeah, I forgot you were going to block me for vandalism. Whatever, I'm no longer interested in getting your reply. Regards, Mbz1 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1 I stopped removing my images not because you said you were going to block me (who cares). I stopped because I finished removing what I planned to remove. Thanks for putting them back. You forgot some pages that lost a lot without my images, but that's OK. Like I said I'm not going to add any more of my images to any Wikipedia page. If somebody else wants to do it,that's fine, I'm not going to remove them later, but you, TigerShark, were no help if resolving the situation, which promted me to remove my images from the Wikipedia pages in the first place. That's OK. No worries and no reply is needed.Mbz1 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Talk page

Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for removing that vandalism from my talk page. Had been there six weeks without me noticing! :) Cheers TigerShark 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Np! Wikidan829 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:BeaSmith.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BeaSmith.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A license question

Hello, I wonder what are the rulls for the licence for Pictures of the Day like, for example, that one: Picture, where a photographer offers to contact him, if somebody wants to buy images. That picture was promoted for Picture of the Day, but does it really have a free licence? Thanks. --Mbz1 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

• Here's the outcome. Thanks.--Mbz1 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Non-free use disputed for Image:Flumps.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Flumps.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:JudgeMortis.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JudgeMortis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:JudgeFire.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JudgeFire.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:GrimsbyDockTower4.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GrimsbyDockTower4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:KerPlunk.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:KerPlunk.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:MaxTheComputer.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MaxTheComputer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Terryandjune.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Terryandjune.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank u TigerShark

Thank u TigerShark for deblocking my account. In the futur I shall ask you if I may add a link to one of the pages of wikipedia.org. Big_smile_21

My RfA

Dear TigerShark, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Password requests

Thanks for the note on my talk page, reported it at WP:ANI as you suggested. --SunStar Net ^talk 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You are 100% correct on the vandalism/content dispute issue with User:Epeefleche. Unfortunately, I am at my wits end on how to resolve the issue. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I have tried to go through the "system" and it seems that even the few admins that have addressed the situation don't stick to the matter at hand. //Tecmobowl 17:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to add that I have tired to go through Resolving disputes process, but so much of my time is dealt with the conversation, that I am unable to get anywere. I am 100% totally open to suggestions (and perhaps a little hand holding b/c maybe i've missed the bigger picture). //Tecmobowl 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TigerShark, I'm fine with that. I'm sure Epeeflechee has already seen the AIV report, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We're up to the (cabal), although I found the response there less than useful. I started a discussion here that focused specifically on the link in question. The other user said said that a good discussion had taken place here. In the meantime, here is my one point: I want a focussed and well supported discussion on fangraphs that will allow the community to dictate its value as a generally included EL and/or its' use as referenced site. If you want to centralize this discussion to your talk page or to mine, I'm happy to do so. I've got this marked. Also, because of the spamming done to my talk page, it might be best to do it here. //Tecmobowl 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master (Doctor Who)

I should've worded my report on 81.145.240.229 better. The problem wasn;t so much that it was a spoiler... but rather that it was an uncited spoiler. The BBC released a press release saying that The Master will be the villian in (at the very minimm) the season finale of season 3. It also states that John Simm is in that episode. While it is likeley that Simm is the new master, there is no concrete evidence to support that yet. 81.145.240.229 kept putting the info on this page over and over again despite being told this more than once.--Dr who1975 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Joeseth3

Hello TigerShark.

I'm a little bit confused that you blocked a vandalism only account just for one day. Please clear me up. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you here. Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

86.131.229.188

Thats weird, i've reported people who've vandalized 3 times in 10 minutes (let alone 3 times in 4 mins) and they got blocked, even without a final warning. The only reason there wasn't is cause I put a regular instead of a final. Warrush

FYI

Hi. Hope you won't mind but I've changed your block of User:Sawyer666 from 24 hours to indefinite. This is a persistent spammer who has been recreating the same junk for 3 months now and has been warned countless times. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Szyslocd

Could you protect it? He replaced it with some ranting once and he'll probably just keep doing it. Bsroiaadn^Talk 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, the rant was in the edit summary. What he replaced the page with was {{sockpuppet|Szyslak}} and he just did it again. Bsroiaadn^Talk 10:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 209 IP

I checked back there and WjBscribe put a test5 note 4 minutes before you posted in my talk page, although, I think it didn't work.--JForget 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

user:24.36.231.72

Hi there; it's your call, because you got to him first, and I will not argue with your decision. In view of the nature of his vandalism edits, and his past history, would you consider changing to a longer block? I was about to block him for a week when you got there first. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at the earlier contributions, it does seem likely that the same individual has made all of the edits from this IP, so a longer block may be appropriate. I would personally stick with 48 hours, as the previous 24 hour block did seem to discourage them for several months, and I always hope that even the worst vandal can be rehabilitated. However, if you feel that 1 week would be more effective, I have no objection to you changing it. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers TigerShark 00:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely never, never try to second-guess another admin. Hence my comment. But it might be an idea if we both put him on our watch lists? I will not over-ride your decision; I don't do that. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, they are on mine. Cheers TigerShark 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)15/07/2007 01:23:04

Excuse me

Hi, by coincidence I saw this comment by you. I would appreciate if you'd direct critcism of my admin decisions to my talkpage rather than expressing them to other editors behind my back. I agree that block wasn't a standard case and was one I gave some thought to. The account presented the problem that it was causing persistent recent vandalism but avoiding crossing the line of a final warning. There was in my opinion sufficient similarity in the vandalism to conclude that this was the same person returning after some time had elapsed each time to avoid being caught out. As such I did not believe that the fact vandalism had stopped at that point indicated the vandalism would not resume at some point in the future. I therefore concluded that a 3 day soft-block was appropriate preventative action - if it causes colateral damage the block can be lifted. I believe my analysis that the user behind the edits was the same (and that no others had used the address to edit in the meantime) justified that decision. So although I agree that my decision was not standard I would rather it were not so casually dismissed as "a mistake", especially without any mention of this to me... WjBscribe 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to explain to the user why, in my opinion, the block did not change the advice that I had given to him - but I did not really want to question you on your actions. This is partially because of a lack of time, but also largely because I have had recent problems with other admins who have responded in a far less constructive way than you have. Neither of these are valid reasons for not having contacted you, and this was an error of judgement that I apologise for. I do think that the contributions history of the IP shows so little activity in the last 6 months that a block was not appropriate after the vandalism stopped, and that an initial 72 hour block was not appropriate either - this is partly because I prefer to attempt to rehabilitate users where possible (I am perhaps too lenient in this matter). However this is just my opinion and it doesn't change the fact that I should have discussed this with you directly, which I again apologise for. Cheers TigerShark 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding An Edit Summary

May I ask how I myself violated 3RR according to this: [13]. I'm not saying I didn't, but I don't think I did. -WarthogDemon 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking over my edits, I think I understand: was the 3RR I made on the List of Pokemon itself? -WarthogDemon 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I could not tell whether this is a content dispute (with 3RR on both side) or vandalism from the other user, if it isn't vandalism then I'd like to suggest that you try to discuss it further with the other party (I can see that you have tried already - so maybe the process at WP:DISPUTE may be useful). If it definitely is simply vandalism, then please let me have more details about how I can identify it as such and I will try to help out. Cheers TigerShark 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess at that moment I incorrectly assumed that the content fork would negate the 3RR, when of course it doesn't. I'll be careful next time. Thanks again and cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User:41.248.8.96. This user had cursed at me twice and posted death threat at an administrator named User:Irishguy. Did you just see what was happening, or did you get that IP from WP:AIV? NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now that you blocked that IP, now I can rest for at least 24 hours. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Taj Mahal Hotel

Taj Mahal Hotel, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Taj Mahal Hotel satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taj Mahal Hotel and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Taj Mahal Hotel during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Russavia 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

TigerShark,

Today (or yesterday), Zzuuzz sent me the following message:

Thank you for experimenting with the page Joe on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, you stated:

   Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Joe, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TigerShark 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 

______________________________

Well, I would just like to say that I did not vandalize the page in question, and someone obviously shares my IP address. So please, don't accuse me of vandalism; I believe that Wikipedia is a fantastic entity and I would not dream of ruining it for others.

Regards,

James Wright

84.67.51.87 08:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

block notices

lol those were accidental, they were intended to be vandalism warnings. i need to fix my anti vandal shortcuts, Thanks for point that out, i probably wouldnt have noticed. thanks for the support, !paradigm! 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm!