Tiptoety, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me. — JGHowestalk - 19 August 2008
Map for Wales Page
Slap
Hi there Tiptoety, I just came across your page and noticed that you seem to be keen to help. If you have the time, would you mind looking at this request please? We are looking to improve the map on the Wales article. The style we have in mind is something like the Monaco or Andorra articles. Sadly, the creator of those maps has a notice on his talk page saying 'No more map requests'. So, I was wondering if you knew where I could go, and/or who I could ask instead. If you don't have the time, would you mind suggesting someone you think may know, please. Many thanks and (Welsh: diolch yn fawr), Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I take it that your lack of response means you don't have the time? Daicaregos (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it have been so hard to say you were too busy to help? Daicaregos (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OH! I have been slapped! :D Sorry for not responding, I have been attempting to find someone who might be able to actually help you seeing as I have no idea how to do that. Anyways, I have been unable to find anyone to help, and like I said, I am not sure how to help you either. Sorry, Tiptoetytalk 04:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that two Russian users User:Offliner and User:Krawndawg are the same. I asked Offliner, and he replied that he never had any other account, although he is obviously not a newcomer. Although they carefully avoid any common articles, they edit in the same WP:DE style. They talk and behave very similarly, and they edit in the same general areas. I checked their time schedule during the July-September period and found that they do not edit in the same time. Say, O. did not edit during Sept. 2-11, but K. edited during Sept 6-9, and so on. Krawndawg often worked together with User:Miyokan, almost as a team (Moreschi should know him). Should anything be done about it?Biophys (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is far too little of evidence for me to block on, but if you have a concern and legitimately feel that they are in fact the same user, compile some evidence and file a report at WP:SSP. Tiptoetytalk 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what if checkuser defines them as the same user?Biophys (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then they would be blocked. Tiptoetytalk 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I've pretty much stopped contributing to wikipedia is because of Biophys constant attacks, attempts to get me blocked, and stocking/revert warring with me all over the place, in almost every single article I ever contributed to. This isn't the first time he's accused me of sockpuppeting. In fact I've almost come to expect it, which is why I still check his edit history once in a while. I am not the same user as Offliner, I don't know who Offliner is, and I don't plan on getting involved in wikipedia editing again (aside from maybe a few updates here and there) because of the sort of harassment Biophys has put me through since I first began editing. Kind of takes the fun out of it. I mean, what's the point in spending countless hours contributing to this site for free in my few spare hours of the day if it only brings frustration, conflict and continuous paranoia/accusations of bad faith? I can think of a million things I'd rather do, up to and including eating glass. Krawndawg (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have blocked several new users without any reason and disrupted deletion discussion at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Galkovsky. Checks by checkuser have confirmed that no one of the blocked users is sockpuppet, so your actions are strongly against any wikipedia policies and rules. As you stay uncooperative, and don't give any answer, I will have to report your actions to administrators noticeboards and arbitration committee. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an open violation of the warning issued by FaysalF to DonaldDuck [1]. Right?Biophys (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I reduced Volodymir k's block from indef to 9 days. Based on the CU result, the user's claims to have been solicited for his vote, and the number of accounts involved, I think it's quite clear that this is a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. The 9 day block will help keep the new AfD from being disrupted by the same call for votes. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if these users want to be unblocked, they should tell who contacted them off-wiki and send these off-wiki messages to the blocking admin, Tiptoety.Biophys (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I am not sure unblocking them was a good decision as they are clearly SPA's, but I will assume good faith and see what happens. Thanks for the note Mangojuice! Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 19:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was a blog posting by the AFD subject itself. He doesn't call for anyone to come participate, but given that the audience of the notice are much more likely than the general population to be fans... anyway, here's the posting: [2]; Google translate does an okay job with it. Mangojuicetalk 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at this user's talk page. He made a promise along the lines of what you had requested he do... I declined the request because I don't think he has any understanding of what he should do differently, but don't let my action stop you from unblocking if you feel it's warranted. Mangojuicetalk 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, declining was the right thing to do here, he clearly is just saying what he thinks we want to hear. Thanks again, Tiptoetytalk 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking Skywriter?
You've just blocked Alleichem and SkyWriter for edit warring on an article. However, looking at the history, I see that SkyWriter reverted Alleichem's edits only twice, and in both cases, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to discuss things with Alleichem. Both he and I have been doing our best to explain things to Alleichem, who is a new, single-issue editor, but to no avail. SkyWriter did not edit war, and should not be blocked.
Alleichem violated 3RR, and has been unwilling to work within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not think that blocking both editors here is wise when there is a qualitative difference between the edits of the two editors. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to take a second look, please bear with me. Tiptoetytalk 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see one, two, three, four, five reverts. Sorry, I am not comfortable unblocking him at this time, though he is always welcome to request a unblock. Tiptoetytalk 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with this block. While I see that he has violated 3RR, what Lisa said above is basically true, and he's not been the only one reverting Alleichem's edits. Would you mind if I shortened the block? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I looked at your diffs again and only two of them are within a 24 hour period of each other. The first two were back in August, the next one was at 7:45 on the 21 of september, then, more than 24 hours later he made the final two. I'm an involved party, but I don't see that 3RR was violated here so I'm going to unblock for now. However, I don't want to wheel-war and run, so feel free to trout me and we can talk about it, 'kay? L'Aquatique[talk] 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, but as you will note I blocked for edit warring, not WP:3RR. Either way, I am not biffed in he is unblocked and I appreciate you reviewing the case. Tiptoetytalk 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that, it seems like there is a fine line there that I do not yet have the experience to fully grasp! This is something I hope will come with time. I am curious, though, and I'm not being in the slightest bit sarcastic here... I had thought this fell under one of the exemptions to 3RR/edit warring- when one is reverting something that is fairly obviously inappropriate, i.e. original research. I suppose that is essentially a content dispute, though, huh? L'Aquatique[talk] 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. To answer your question, his reverts do not fall under the 3RR exceptions, please see [3] this is nothing more than a run of the mill content dispute, and remember it always takes two to edit war. Tiptoetytalk 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, in this case, three or four or five... Thanks for your help. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR noticeboard
Hi, looks like you blocked User:Prophaniti for 48 hours according to the block log. However, in the result section of the report you put 24 hours. I have changed it to 48 hours, I hope I was correct in doing so. Landon1980 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you are correct in doing so. It appears I made a mistake, thank you! Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, you may want to keep an eye on this users talk page. He is using his talk to make comments like this. I would do it myself but I'm off to work here in a little bit. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor that you blocked is asking to be unblocked. I'm sending his request to you for a possible unblock. From a personal standpoint, I'd go with the unblock, as the editor's final edit was not on the disputed material. NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looks like another admin reviewed and declined. Tiptoetytalk 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the adimin of en. wikip. I see that you've blocked User:Dicting for 24 hours because of 3RR. AND it've been confirmed that he's a sock-puppet of a long-time vadalist 十字军大屠杀. PLEASE notice this guy.--1j1z2 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can not block him for his actions on another wiki. If he chooses to sock here, then I will deal with it. Tiptoetytalk 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Olympic Games
Hey; the vandalism had been going on far before the 2008 games, and 99% of it tends not to be related to the olympics at all. Vandalism has started again after the removal of the protection tag; could you reinstate it? Ironholds 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add it to my watchlist, and if it gets worse I will reinstate protection. If I am offline and it gets hit hard, just file a request at WP:RFPP. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! And in response to the message at the top of your talk page; How many presidential candidates does it take to change a lightbulb? None; they only promise change. Ironholds 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoetytalk 21:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I still have no idea why they pick this article particularly, esp. as it's on my to-do list (long, long to-do list) to get to GA, so their vandalism is infuriating. I wouldn't mind so much if they had a reason. Ironholds 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Archeopteryx is autoblocked. Normally, I'da just handled it myself, but the person who led to the autoblock is User:Mr. abcdefghijklmnop, who's first post was to Archeopteryx's talk page, which is somewhat suspect. Since you are obviously more familiar with the case than anyone else, could you look into his request, and see if it has merit, or if Archeopteryx is another sock of whoever it was that was socking in the first place. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was looking over that myself and was not too sure what to make of it, like you said it is something suspect. I will take a closer look over their contribs here in a second. Tiptoetytalk 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppetry case has been opened about Bogorm (talk·contribs) at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bogorm. I had thought it was put to rest with the RFCU, but he/she appears to not want to let go. Your comments would be appreciated as you were involved in the situation and had previously commented on the RFCU. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Tiptoetytalk 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about protection at Petroleum
I'm curious why you only protected Petroleum for 24 hours. This is the 5th time this year that it has been protected from IP vandalism, and it is relatively stable besides that. NJGW (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the vandalism appeared to be rather slow, and up until the last few days it was reverted rather quickly. I am hoping that 24 hours will cause the vandals to go find something else to do. Tiptoetytalk 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen teens like me post their ages on wiki... so, why cant i do it too? and anyways, forget the crap i stated above... just send me the copy of the info.. thanks -.- II MusLiM HyBRiD II 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other people post their ages does not mean it's a good idea. GlassCobra 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Glasscobra. There is no valid reason why you (or anyone) should post their age on wikipedia. Keeperǀ76 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HyBRiD, the reason I am doing this is for your safety, so please try and treat me with a bit more respect. Also, I am not sure I am confident in re-sending you a copy of your deleted userpage seeing as I did that once and you just reposted the same info. Tiptoetytalk 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, i need you to send me the info, i didnt save my formats and layouts. I wont post my age, since you three tell me not to. If you decide not to send it, well, ill have to start from scractch again... II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tiptoety. I am just here to notify you that I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 to include a new, recent case. Please feel free to comment when ready (or if prompted by a CU). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've just blocked Alleichem and SkyWriter for edit warring on an article. However, looking at the history, I see that SkyWriter reverted Alleichem's edits only twice, and in both cases, spent an inordinate amount of time trying to discuss things with Alleichem. Both he and I have been doing our best to explain things to Alleichem, who is a new, single-issue editor, but to no avail. SkyWriter did not edit war, and should not be blocked.
Alleichem violated 3RR, and has been unwilling to work within Wikipedia guidelines. I do not think that blocking both editors here is wise when there is a qualitative difference between the edits of the two editors. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa? You also have broken the 3RR rule but no one reported you. I don't think it's right really. We both broke the rules, but it was Sky who was using a different user. Alleichem (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he thinks I'm Garzo. Admittedly, I AM a fan... SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, everyones blocks have expired anyways, there is not much that can be done at this point other than just letting it lye. Tiptoetytalk 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was Alleichem who brought it back up. Lisa's edit is dated 9/22. In any case, it's advanced to an RfC. The user has not stopped the activity. Thanks for helping the other day. It gave about five editors and an admin a break from the multiple battles. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
Tiptoety, please see my talk page for a comment I made, which perhaps you could address. It is regarding half of the reason for my desire to withdraw from Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old RFA deletions
What is up with these deletions? What is the point or goal here? KnightLago (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, after looking into it further I see what you are up too. KnightLago (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since your unprotection one week ago, Attack_on_Pearl_Harbour has been subjected to 9 IP-user vandalism attacks. Any chance of re-protection? Jaimaster (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Russavia is back after a block with comments like this: [4]. It's comments like this that makes editors leave articles, which is probably also the meaning with them.Närking (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally ok to call people nutters apparently. Refer to Moreschi for comments on this. And yes, the comments are pure nuttery. And yes, it is OR. --RussaviaDialogueStalk me 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
