User:Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since 33451 objects to me linking to his archived talk page (apparently he doesn't want people to read it), I created a copy in "my" namespace and will link to that instead. — David Remahl 17:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tasty Sandwich's archives for my Talk page. Here you can find "Talk" messages that have been removed from my main talk page to promote a new sense of order. The comments on this page were all posted during 2004.

1 July 2004
2 August 2004
3 September 2004
4 Sockpuppets of 33451

[edit] July 2004

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

[edit] Don't Create POV

Please don't create joke pages like "Terrible President who deserves to burn in hell". Try to follow Wikipedia:NPOV. Thanks, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination of User for Deletion

Your nomination of User:Anthony DiPierro for deletion has been withdrawn as it would appear to be the action of an Internet troll. If this was not your intention then could you please explain, in full, your reasons for wanting to delete this article? Many thanks. If it was your intention then this is a formal warning: any more and you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia permanently. — Graham ☺ | Talk 00:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GraphicConverter for Mac OS 9

LemkeSoft's excellent GraphicConverter runs on Mac OS 9 and will convert images to PNG for you. See [1]. — Gdr 23:10, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll check it out. — Mr. Grinch 19:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] August 2004

[edit] Hoover Dam

Not that it's of any great moment, but why did you think that Hoover Dam (Ohio) needed disambiguation? No one will ever get there by accident, given that Hoover Dam is about the big one. JamesMLane 02:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added disambiguation in the event that someone posted a link to Hoover Dam (Ohio) with the text Hoover Dam, for example, a link [[Hover Dam (Ohio)|Hoover Dam]]. It was simply one of the minor edits that I make. — Mr. Grinch (Talk) 14:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images on ITN

PLEASE do not add that image and text to In the News. Why would you do that? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:24, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

I accidentally used comments wrong so that my text did not appear. In place of , I used <!-- and -&gt, causing my work to be hidden. Sorry. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why would you insert them at all? If it happens again, you will be blocked for vandalism. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:32, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
The item in question was your insertion of the mention of Wikipedia and its article on the childlove movement. If this happens again, you will be blocked. Feel free to update In the News with things that belong there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:50, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
- What determines whether an item belongs there? — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 15:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Read Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, which mentions, amongst other criteria, that it must be an important event, as well as include a link to an article that has been updated with this information, neither of which was true for your addition. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:56, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN

Your comment was NOT funny. I quit the project once over this, and I don't intend to do it again. You may very well be breaking the law with that posting. You have your "childlove" article. Please leave it at that. — Lucky 6.9 00:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm stating that your actions may be illegal based on the fact that the Wikipedia servers are based in the US. Federal law tends to frown on pedophilia via the internet. I ask you again, please let it go. You may be exposing yourself and this site to serious trouble. Do the right thing. — Lucky 6.9 00:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism

Your edits to User:BigCat were seriously misleading and totally inappropriate. I note that you have already been warned twice about posting material related to pedophilia in inappropriate places. Your continued behavior after warnings strongly suggests that your actions are deliberate and intended to be disruptive. You should stop this disruptive behavior immediately. If you make any more similarly inappropriate edits anywhere on Wikipedia, I will block you from editing. —Michael Snow 23:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For your information, we are now requesting comments from the community regarding your behavior on these issues. You may respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. — Michael Snow 05:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello 33451. I have removed your request from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and placed it below. This is something that you should either work out directly with Michael Snow or you can work it out through WP:RfC. Please carefully read through Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

[edit] User:33451 and User:Michael Snow

User:Michael Snow RfC'd me after I'd misinterpreted User:BigCat's pun “'pediophile” as “pedophile” and tried to link it to Pedophilia. I'd had a bit of a history in the past, as once when I first signed up as a user I nominated User:Anthony DiPierro for deletion. I want to put all this behind me and continue with good contributions, but I need to resolve these issues first. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 19:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

Well, Mr. G., I'm sorry the mediators feel this isn't ready for them yet — my personal opinion would be that this is the perfect time for mediation. I would encourage you to contact the Wikipedia:AMA as I mentioned on the pump — perhaps an advocate there would be willing to help facilitate a conversation. Alternatively, you could try contacting members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee privately to see if any of the would be interested in helping you in an unofficial capacity. One more piece of advice, if you like: I encourage you not to change names. Changing usernames is a rare thing, and when the original username has been associated with any controversy at all, usually a switch is seen as a person trying to "cover their tracks" and hide. It makes many editors much more suspicious — it's almost always better to simply attempt to rehabilitate the image of your original username. If you do switch, try to make that switch as public as possible — note it prominently on the user page of your new name, redirect to your new user page from your old user page, and perhaps even drop a note on your user talk page.

Now a final thought — I think Michael Snow is one of our best editors, but you obviously feel he's misunderstanding you. You should know that Michael does not have a reputation (as some here admittedly do) for mistrusting new people, being hot-tempered, or behaving irrationally. Because of this, I'm inclined to believe his statements...but I'm also (because I'm committed to the principle of assuming good faith) inclined to trust you that some of it was unintentional and some was simply you playing around on arrival. I suggest the following course of action — leave Michael a note apologizing (and perhaps leave a similar note to others who complain), and then ask what policy documents you should look at to avoid future trouble. I find apologizing a great tool (I do it a lot) — it lets the other person know I'm not fighting them anymore, and I recognize that, whether I meant it or not, they're upset, and so apologies help me explain that I didn't intend to upset them. Then I can ask them questions about why they were upset with them knowing I didn't intend it and I'm honestly willing to change. I don't know if you feel you can do that, but I honestly think that would be the best way to turn over a new leaf here and start from scratch. I hope you'll at least consider it. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 21:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About the IP Block

See the answer on My talk page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your earlier comment on my talk page

I certainly did read your previous comment. The comment did not specifically call for a reply, and I didn't feel that I needed to make any response. The issue of whether that page should be deleted is a tangent, and one that I'm not looking to pursue right now. — Michael Snow 16:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, your question was about my failure to respond to your "last comment", and the last comment you had posted to my talk page before this exchange was this edit, so that was the basis for my reply. Regarding the even earlier comment about User:BigCat, I felt I had addressed your questions in my rebuttal on your RfC listing, which you have obviously read, so I don't understand what kind of additional response you may be looking for. — Michael Snow 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

Now, to address your other questions. I think a very important part of accepting responsibility is a recognition that your initial edits to Template:In the news were completely inappropriate, and yet you continue to defend that action as if it were perfectly innocent. Anyone trying to edit that template must obviously have at least passing familiarity with the Main Page and the kind of material that appears there. Given that familiarity with the Main Page, anyone would recognize that these edits did not involve a significant news item of the kind normally shown in that section. This in addition to the fact that you ignored our policy against self-references and disregarded the prerequisites for listing an item on the template in the first place.

Basically, those edits are entirely consistent with what I'd expect from someone who's reasonably familiar with Wikipedia and wants to disrupt the site with the maximum exposure possible. They are not at all typical of new users who are just experimenting and learning the system, and may innocently fall afoul of particular rules. Your claim that these edits were not intended to be vandalism is just too implausible. — Michael Snow 20:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By all means, if you show that you take responsibility for your actions I have no interest in pursuing the matter further. I'm not seeking to punish you for vandalizing Template:In the news, but if you're not willing to admit that it was vandalism, I don't see how we can trust you not to vandalize in the future. In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from editing in good faith. It's only if you edit in bad faith that you have anything to be concerned about. — Michael Snow 16:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point about self-references is that generally we don't mention Wikipedia itself outside of contexts where it's obviously appropriate. While Wikipedia occasionally gets mentioned or cited in various news sources, this fact is not itself newsworthy, so that's how it relates to what you were doing.

With respect to your explanation, "My edits were vandalism, but I was seeing how the vandalism would be handled." - That sounds like a far more plausible explanation. Based on some of your other editing interests, I take it you were doing an experiment something similar to what Peacefire apparently does?

For future reference, please be aware that this kind of behavior is considered extremely rude at best. For a simple analogy, it's basically like deliberately dumping trash on someone else's property to see if they pick it up. It should not be too surprising if people find this offensive.

Anyway, if you are willing to change your response to the RfC once more, in line with what you wrote to me, I think that would be an appropriate place. If you're committed to not repeating this behavior, I would be quite happy to put the matter behind us. — Michael Snow 19:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I just got the word from Michael Snow. If you're committed to good-faith contributions, you have my full support. I couldn't be more pleased to welcome you to the club. — Lucky 6.9 20:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for coming clean about your behavior. I have now put an explanation on the RfC listing, moved it to the archive, and notified everyone who participated in the discussion that I consider the matter resolved. — Michael Snow 21:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] September 2004

[edit] Your WP:RFA self-nom

Please don't feel too let down. I don't know much about you, but good users will get nominated, and depending on the scope of your contributions and behaviour, you might want to renominate yourself in a few months time if nobody else has. It's just that roughly 400 edits indicate you haven't been here long enough to fully grasp our policies and Wikiquette, nor had enough practical experience in dealing with messy matters like edit wars. — Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It says under self-nomination that you should be prepared to exceed expectations that are set for admin candidates nominated by someone else. IMO, you would have been rejected had you gotten a nomination. You're just not there yet. In November, maybe. — Mike H 16:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I do, because I feel that if one is to be as bold as to nominate themselves for a position, they should be more than able to back their nomination up with experience and edits and all that. I feel that usually people should be here longer than three months and have at least 1000 good edits to their name. I don't just buy the fact that their edits are automatically good; I go and actually research their histories. — Mike H 17:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there are any formal requirements. There are requirements that have been universally understood as acceptable. You can see votes for formal requirements on the RFA talk page. — Mike H 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to do it beforehand, but I think now is a good a time as any. Thank you very much for supporting my adminship even though I rejected yours. I'm very grateful and I do believe that, in time, I will support your next run, as well. :-) Mike H 19:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of George Woshingtin and Queen/Band

I'm sorry for not noticing the discussions, but my reasoning was as follows:

(Woshingtin) — redirects based on misspellings may make sense for a common misspelling, but "Woshingtin" is a highly implausible one; ie. the chances of somebody actually typing that in the search box are so low as to be virtually nonexistent. Unless you're proposing to add a redirect for every remotely conceivable misspelling of every single article on Wikipedia, there's just no legitimate reason for it.
(Queen/Band) — simply isn't standard Wikipedia format for a disambiguation page. In addition, the redirect was created when the article was moved to the correct title format (and deleting such things after a set amount of time is pretty standard procedure — it just didn't get noticed until now.)

Considering that in both cases, the only keep votes on RfD were your own, I don't feel particularly obligated to reverse my actions on these. If you want to list them for undeletion, go right ahead, but they ain't gonna be undeleted by me. — Bearcat 22:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition of Kate

Why did you oppose User:Kate on Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship? It is considered good style to at least leave a comment if you oppose a candidate, and in this case when sie has 100 % support before your vote, I think it is even more important.

— David Remahl 07:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it a problem that I didn't explain my actions? I see several in the "support" list that don't have any comments, just a name. Why isn't it appropriate for me to do the same thing with an opposition? — i386 | Talk 21:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but when support otherwise is so strong, it is odd not to elaborate on one's opposition. I think it is especially important to provide some kind of comment for opposition votes, considering that most think that adminship shouldn't be that much of a deal...Furthermore, I talked to Kate, and sie said that sie had never, to hir knowledge, interacted with you on Wikipedia, so I'm also questioning what basis you have to vote on hir adminship. But it is up to you. — David Remahl 21:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My modifications make sense, see gender-neutral pronoun (which is, oddly, how Kate prefers to refer to hir-self). — David Remahl 21:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What basis do I need' to vote on her adminship? Several of the people who voted against my adminship are people with whom I had never interacted. I think Kate would make a good admin, but I'm afraid that there's no change of vote. Also, please don't use gender-neutral pronouns on my talk page. — i386 | Talk 14:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least now I can say that I have interacted with you, and with good conscience vote against you next time you stand for admin election... — David Remahl 17:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tasty Sandwich?

When did you change from Mr. Grinch to Tasty Sandwich? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that's who i386 is ... okay. Thanks for telling me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What you should and should not do to get my support for admin

Since you asked me on my talk page, I'll tell you:

Explain your reasoning unless it is quite clear already, when voting on polls.
Use the preview button, to avoid wasting people's time.
Stop trying desperately to please, if the only reason is to gain support.

— David Remahl 19:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Jimbo Wales

My apologies, I didn't read the small print at the top. — Graham ☺ | Talk 12:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Silver Proxy

With regard to this user who was blocked earlier today by myself, I have reason to believe that this was not a new user but a returning troll. In my note on this user's behaviour on Vandalism in progress I compare the edit history of this user to one User:Callixtus who was blocked earlier this week. The vandalism of Callixtus and this user's edits contain certain similarities; also this user's edits are not the normal edits of a new user who doesn't know what they are doing, but of someone who knows the system very, very well. The normal treatment for returning trolls is to place an instant block on their behaviour. If this was incorrect then I would like to know where to bring this up in open forum so that this individual case may be reviewed.

Also this user uploaded an image that was not only a suspected copyright violation it was also extremely offensive, because it promoted sex with 3 year old children. If this was not a speedy deletion candidate then I must apologise profusely, however as I am sure you are aware images cannot be undeleted so I am unable to follow your instructions with regard to this image. — Graham ☺ | Talk 16:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Totally nude" first chose an inappropriate user name, then uploaded a vulgar image on his user page, and finally nominated himself for admin. It's clear that this user isn't here to write an encyclopedia but rather to amuse himself at our expense. — 172 10:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets of 33451

[edit] User talk:WikiWatch

CopSir, allow me to quote WP:RFA (emphasis mine):

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and more than 1000 edits. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so.

Your self-nomination was out of place and has been removed. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to abuse WP:RFA, you may be prevented from editing Wikipedia. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop trolling, please. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to add to the chorus here. If you continue to list your nomination, you will be blocked. Snowspinner 15:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

You're obviously unqualified, and your attempted self-nomination is wasting everyone's time. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you truly want to be an admin then take my advice.

Stop putting your name on the RfA page. You will not gain adminship at this time and will only annoy people.
Edit some articles. Make that a lot of articles.
Earn peoples trust, usually it takes around 3 months or so of good editing and trustworthy behaviour.
Then put your name on RFA.

If, OTOH you don't actually want to be an admin but are just here to cause trouble then you will soon find yourself blocked from editing. HTH Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 16:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WiKi.pnG

In direct violation of what? —No-One Jones ^(mail) 21:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)ied from Wiki Watch

[edit] User talk:Shquid

Hello Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Ha ha! Do not vandalize. *plonk* — Infrogmation 15:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Shquid. You should probably know that some people not only claim that you vandalized the Wikipedia logo, but that your user account is a "Sockpuppet" of myself. I think you should know and be ready to defend yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. As you are a newcomer, I hate to do this to you, but I believe you have the right to know. — 33451 | Talk 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — i386 | Talk

[edit] Can I sell my old user name?

I currently have a sockpuppet account under the name of User:Shquid. I no longer need this account, as it was created for a bot that I never wrote. I have a friend who would like the name Shquid for her own use. Since the account has no contributions, can I sell her this username? I'm considering creating Shquid on other Wikimedia wikis and selling it as a package. Is there anything that says I can't do this? — i386 | Talk 15:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why not—if someone is foolish enough to pay real money for a Wikipedia account (which they can easily get for free) then there's no rule against it as far as I know. —No-One Jones 15:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see who would buy it. It's not like Wikipedia accounts are like Gmail accounts, or that Shquid is a particuallarily desirable username. Darksun 15:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, just give it to her. :P — Golbez 15:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I fear you may find the fair market value of this name to be disappointing. C'mon, why not be a sport and treat the lovely lady to this enchanting username? User:Schplat!!!! 15:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, she's a big fan of The Shquid, so I thought she might like that username, but maybe I'll just give it to her free. Can I have that user's talk page deleted so that she can start over new, or will she have to blank it? — i386 | Talk 15:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oops! There was a mistake with that link. The real Shquid site is here. Sorry about that. Can someone give me more information on how to get that old User talk page deleted, and do you need confirmation from User:Shquid for that? — i386 | Talk 17:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Log in as User:Shquid and either blank the page or tag it for speedy deletion with {{delete}}. Be sure to explain what you're doing. —No-One Jones 17:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Okay, Shquid's tagged it as speedy. Once it's been deleted, will that edit disappear from Shquid's contribs? — i386 | Talk
Must have user name Shquid! Will exchange for sister! — orthogonal 16:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
actually [ie, "opinion"] "Shquid" goes rather well with "carptrash". What are you asking? Carptrash 17:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was unable to get either link to work for me. I did a yahoo search on Shquid, and came up with nonsense - one page was in all in russian except for "single-threaded shquid". I think "Shquid" is a better name than "i386", but what do I know, my name is "nroose". I do think, however that it would be sad if Wikipedia, which is free in both the monetary sense, and in the freedom sense, ended up having an open market for user names. nroose Talk 17:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "i386" is a computer term, it's either a name for an old Intel chip or the directory where Windows NT is installed from. Either way, Shquid's talk page has been deleted, and I've changed Shquid's password so that I can give it to her without any problems. I think that this is all I needed. — i386 | Talk 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Selling the sockpuppet that you used to vandalise the logo with? Surely you jest.

I think some of you guys have been hoodwinked here. I just checked the page and the deleted talk page has the following text on it (after some "don't vandalize wikipedia" warnings)

"Hi Shquid. You should probably know that some people not only claim that you vandalized the Wikipedia logo, but that your user account is a "Sockpuppet" of myself. I think you should know and be ready to defend yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. As you are a newcomer, I hate to do this to you, but I believe you have the right to know. — 33451 | Talk 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

This whole charade was in fact a way of getting rid of this page. For this reason I'm going to undelete. Of course if the community wants to forgive and forget that's fine with me but let's decide that rather than be conned. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What the hell? I haven't been conning anyone, I genuinely wanted to give away that name. Why are you bent on thinking that I'm a troll? Don't you think it's possible for a person to change? — i386 | Talk 19:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think it is perfectly possible for a person to change.And I have no problem with you giving away the sockpuppet. I just don't want the history speedily deleted. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 21:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:156.63.193.62

(This is the IP of a school, it's possible therefore that some of the edits made from this IP are unrelated to the activities of 33541)

Okay. Here I am. It's inappropriate. There's no point in making a redirect for every possible misspelling because you can't ever put every possible mispelling. There's just too many possibilities, and it's just polluting the "what links here" page. Major misspellings, yes. This isn't one of them. —Golbez 18:08, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Stop the redirect madness please. Its childish. — Richss 18:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

ha ha ha. please stop now. — Mpolo 19:52, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] We don't need to talk about other countries in Template:In the news ????

Excuse me ? We don't need to talk about other countries Template:In the news ??? Wikipedia is a worldwide operation ! — PFHLai 21:10, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Please stop removing "comments not relavent to the United States" from Template:In the news (or anywhere else for that matter). Wikipedia is not US-centric, and you surely know this; therefore, if you continue these disruptive edits you will be blocked from editing. — Hadal 15:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. I agree with the comment above; what you are doing is against policy, and will result in your being blocked from editing if repeated. This is your final warning. — The Anome 15:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, please don't be under any misapprehension that you are anonymous, or that your provider is not in a position to log your network activity:

State of Ohio Network STATE-OHIO (NET-156-63-0-0-1) 
                                 156.63.0.0 - 156.63.255.255
Tri-Rivers Educational Computer Association OH-156-63-193-0-24 (NET-156-63-193-0-1) 
                                 156.63.193.0 - 156.63.193.255
http://www.treca.org/
Reverse lookup of 156.63.193.62: pix-n193-62.treca.org.

— The Anome 15:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, The Anome, but is there any reason why you can't just let anons be anonymous without looking up their exact location and finding out where they are? Now I'll have to help this user onto another proxy, so that he can be anonymous.

By the way, 156.63.193.62, I agree that there should be a policy to keep other countries' unimportant news off of Template:In the news, however, some others seem to think that other countries—including some that don't even speak English—deserve to be on the front page of this U.S.-based project. — i386 | Talk 12:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To User:33451, signing themselves as "i386": Isn't that strange? On earlier versions of your user page, you state that you have exactly the same IP address as our friend here. Wikipedia is a global project, not a U.S. based project. Assisting other users (assuming, of course, that they are other users, and not yourself under another name) to flout policy is not welcome. — The Anome 20:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And 33451/i386/Mr. Grinch has a history of vandalizing In the News with the child love picture. Isn't it time we all lived happier, easier lives and blocked him once and for all? He is obviously an elaborate, intelligent troll, and the amount of coddling he's receiving here is sickening. Either a troll, actually, or simply hopelessly immature, since he claims to be 14. I dunno, I wasn't this annoying at 14. — Golbez 21:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being called a “troll” for agreeing with an anonymous IP. Also, please do not refer to me as Mr. Grinch. — i386 | Talk 21:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you deny that you are Mr. Grinch, and that you vandalized In the News in a similar, though more dangerous, fashion? — Golbez 22:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC):

No, I do not deny that I was Mr. Grinch, but I simply do not like to be referred to in that manner. — i386 | Talk 11:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not assisting this use to flout the policy, I am simply saying that I agree with his views. And if you look at your own results for the IP, you'll see that it comes from a school. So maybe I know this person, but it's not me. — i386 | Talk 21:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopedia, simply the English language version of it. Get used to it. — Golbez 22:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have gotten used to it. But apparently someone here hasn't. Go to treca.org, listed in the above IP information, and you'll see that it's a school

It'll soon be an edit-blocked school if this behavior does not stop. Final warning. -- The Anome 12:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other possible sockpuppets

[edit] User talk:Silver Proxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   It was the move from Talk:George Washington to Talk:George Woshingtin. The page should have stayed where it was. Also I would question whether the imagte you just uploaded is fairuse. Are you able to provide a reference for where you got it from? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

       The fairuse bit was the least of my worries. Mike H 12:11, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

RV is short for revert. I fixed the move of the page which was a bad thing - soemthing like that can count as vandalism. The way you tried to fox it would have lost the editing history of that article - it would then look like it was you and ionly you who wrote it. I just cleaned up the mess you created. So - don't do it again, please, only move pages if they really need to be moved. andy 12:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Totally Nude