User talk:L0b0t
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] RfC on Mitsos
Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:216.96.116.83
Thanks for whacking that vandal off my user page! Could you please do a CheckUser on User:Blue Sand521 to see if he's the same IP? This mess all started when I ventured that Blue Sand and the IP need to present an actual case contesting the deletion of Young B instead of the childish whining, personal attacks, and logical fallacies coming from their general direction. Apparently they're escalating to vandalism of user pages in their undeclared war. Wonderful.
See the talk page as well; they've turned it into a 'Let's whine and make baseless accusations and personal attacks!' personal pity party. It's a mess. I'd appreciate your help. Thank you. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Chicken Noodle Soup
Brookie deleted the article. He forgot to see the AfD that said to keep the article. I'm trying to restore the article back, but I've run into some problems. Nishkid64 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, article has now been restored. Thanks for letting me know! =) Nishkid64 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do you love Cats?
There is an RfC here on which you may like to comment. Not sure if cats are your cup of tea or not, but I think this one sets a record for the longest silly argument on a single talk page of the entire English Wikipedia. Certainly worth a laugh, maybe a look, a comment only if you like. Good day!--Ramdrake 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] From WP:AIV
68.44.107.97 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), constantly linkspamming and vandalsing articles, usually a tag team efort with suspiciously similar IP 68.44.32.182 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Permanent ban is definatly in order here. Both IPs have been warned and blocked repeatedly. L0b0t 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a gross mischaracterization of what is occuring with these IP addresses. 68.44.32.182 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) was blocked two days ago. 68.44.107.97 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), contrary to what you say, has never been blocked. And you're warnings are excessively harsh. Remember to use {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, etc. instead of jumping to {{test4}} or {{bv}}. -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- 68.44.107.97 has 10 edits dating back to August 2006, every single edit is to vandalise an article or to insert commercial linkspam. 68.44.32.182 has 27 edits since May of 2006, only 1 of which is not vandalism or linkspamming. Both of these IP's abuse the same 3 articles repeatedly. How is that a gross mischaracterization? L0b0t 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- You said the users had been warned and blocked repeatedly, but 68.44.107.97 had never been blocked and only received two warnings. 68.44.32.182 had been blocked several times, but I see several of the warnings on the user's talk page are double posts of the same warning. Although at least one of these users may be persistent with ignoring Wikipedia's rules, we do not want to be scaring potential users away by using {{blatantvandal}} for every bit of vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree wholeheartedly. We DO want to scare away users that have nothing to contribute but linkspam and vandalism. {{blatantvandal}} is not a step up from a {{test}} but rather, to be used when there is no question as to wether the edit was vandalism (Such as this case, when it is the same linkspam and removal of sourced info again and again by the same anon users.) I'm all for not biting the newcomers but vandalism should never be tolerated for any reason or from any editor. To be soft on vandals (short blocks or even worse no block) just encourages more vandalism. The article Johnny Rebel (singer) has been vandalised 25 times just by these two anons. Where do you draw the line? L0b0t 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- 68.44.107.97 has 10 edits dating back to August 2006, every single edit is to vandalise an article or to insert commercial linkspam. 68.44.32.182 has 27 edits since May of 2006, only 1 of which is not vandalism or linkspamming. Both of these IP's abuse the same 3 articles repeatedly. How is that a gross mischaracterization? L0b0t 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Don't revert that edit on G-whatever
Yes, that article in general needs about 50000000 things sourced...but that single unverified box at the top should cover it. The article with 500000000 {{fact}} tags isn't improved. Let the AFD run. I'm going to warn LILVOKA regarding the reverts as well, since that wasn't simple vandalism. Ok? Syrthiss 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- ok. :) Syrthiss 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New user
I'm going to file the user under "Heart is probably in the right place". Although the actual content of the articles is somewhat questionable (the whole waltism category thing is somewhat bemusing) he created some articles that we should have had in the first place (i.e. Nordenfelt gun). I'll keep an eye on his contributions and follow behind with a mop and bucket. Let me know if there are any articles that you feel need particular attention. Megapixie 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
