User talk:Triplestop: Difference between revisions

Shiny stuff spam This page is a spam free zone Talk page stalkers are welcome on this page This user is a participant in WikiProject Spam. This user is a participant in WikiProject Articles for creation. You can help!

This is a list of pages that would be useful to watch to find spammers. Feel free to edit.

• Spam Links (alternate)
• COI spammers (alternate)
• COI spam more
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports COI spam reports (today's report)
• New user pages Spam disguised as user pages
• New user talk pages Spam in user talk
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports Spammers
• Special:NewPages
• Special:Log/newusers Useful for finding sockpuppets and spammers
• #cvn-wp-en-newusers IRC channel for new names

You appear to have voted twice for support.--Rockfang (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, that was embarrassing. I took it out Triplestop (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it could be merged and redirected to cigar. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be made up, and I don't think the etiquette of cigar smoking is notable/widely accepted enough for adding to Cigar. Triplestop (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the web page, where a took the text and reshaped it for Wikipedia. Know I try to learn how to prove I am the author and trying to include some basic facts about the UNA Slovenia on Wikipedia. Could you help? All the best, Boschtjan (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide external confirmation of some sort that the web page is indeed yours. Triplestop (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have included in the footer of the page following: "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License." You can have a look on www.unaslovenia.org/en. Is it OK now? Thanks. Boschtjan (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message[1]. Maybe not, I think. The user could be working up a legitimate article in his user space, notwithstanding that it seems to be about himself. He seems to be marginally notable, i.e. he has worked on some pretty successful TV shows and I see some hits in google news for him[2]. I would give it the benefit of the doubt for now, keep an eye on it for a week or two, as it's not in mainspace, and see what he does with it. Cheers, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there no templates on the userpages? And can't these usernames be deleted from the database? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's helpful to tag userspace material as promotional. One of the purposes of user space is to allow users to work on material that is not yet in a form suitable for an article page, and we urge users to do that in several places. Since the pages are not indexed by any major search engines, users are not incentivized to create them for googlespam, and so I tend to assume good faith unless the material in question is an attack page or copyvio. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to be created by a person with the same username as the subject making it a violation of WP:SPAMNAME. Also note that G11 applies to all namespaces. Triplestop x3 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean for this to sound aggressive, because it's a sincere question, but how familiar are you with fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content rules? I ask because, while NYScholar's arguments may indeed be logical, they follow from some completely inaccurate first principles (i.e. blatant misconceptions about copyright law) on which he/she absolutely refuses to be corrected, even in the fact of every other editor involved in discussions disputing them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my already-stated statements of how the "fair use rationale" for the image in question is invalid on the basis of its not meeting several of the "criteria" for "fair use" in the WP:IUP. I stated the same in Talk:Harold Pinter, but Sarcasticidealist (now going under the moniker Steve Smith) in support of Jezhotwells and Ssilvers falsely maintains the opposite. I have clearly questioned the validity of the latter's fair use rationale in relation to both the criteria for "fair use" and the misuse of copyright property without a valid fair use claim/rationale. (See my own current talk page responses to Sarcasticidealist et al.) The photo adds nothing educational to the article that is not already linked in it (it is from the index page of a section of the subject's official website, which is accessible to everone in English Wikipedia). It is not a "unique historic image"; it is posted on the website and easily viewed, and the website is copyright Harold Pinter, a copyright which is in force. With no valid fair use rationale, how is this use permissible in Wikipedia? (Other issues pertaining to restrictions placed on the photograph by the conditions of the British Library archive exist too, but it is not true to say that I have "blatant misconceptions about copyright law on which" I "absolutely refuse...to be corrected, etc." These editors just want to post this image whether or not it meets WP:IUP. They have no concern for actually meeting the "fair use criteria", since they have already acknowledged that it may not meet them. So....? --NYScholar (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the past several days involved in this whole "ban" thing; I just went back to the image page and noticed that changes were made to the fair use rationale that I had not noticed (sometime on June 23), and I've updated my comments on the discussion page. Please consult that if you wish. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note, when you replace a deleted Speedy tag, please add back any maintenance tags that were added after the CSD was removed. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that my username was the same as my private domain name. I requested a user name change to CardwellTax, which unfortunately is also a domain name. Help: how do I unrequest the name change? I think I have one that will work: slytax. Thanks.Sfcardwell (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine at WP:UAA (though I'm not one to talk... but that's a topic for another New Section on another day), but just so you know, CSDs aren't used for user pages. -WarthogDemon 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criterion under "G" for general apply to all namespaces. See WP:CSD#General Triplestop x3 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I have made too many enemies, some of whom would start crawling out from under their rocks to oppose me. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a simple majority, no problem; but it's not, it's supermajority, so it is a problem. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triplestop. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said "great minds think alike"? It appears MBisanz was thinking the same thing. Plastikspork (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Concerning your change to {{db-g10}}, the problem with adding an open-ended div to hide the content is that it only gives the appearance to be blanked, but Google will still index the page content. See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Courtesy blanking G10 pages for an older discussion about it.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to include an html comment to blank it out instead? Triplestop x3 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, they will always either be interpreted as a wikicode comment and not make it into output, or be escaped as "<--". Amalthea 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Triplestop for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. Many thanks for your efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Triplestop x3 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should be blacklisted. It has failed as a source at the WP:RS noticeboard. The Wiki-article for the website was also AfD'd as it was determined to be an amateur fansite run by a carpet salesman. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask what you consider this IP was doing wrong? Specifically?PointOfPresence (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was not adding "promotional links to a commercial site", but to a free, information portal on synthetic biology for scientists! The IP was in fact the Royal Society itself. Please check your facts before behaving so heavy handedly in future.PointOfPresence (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but the link was to a free resource. Did you not check this? And are you aware that the Royal Society is a not-for-profit organisation? It is in fact the UK's National Academy of Science.PointOfPresence (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the examples. I have looked at the referring wikipedia pages and it would seem that the links you refer to were made by someone at Imperial College (which shares the same IP address as the Royal SocietyPointOfPresence (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it, by the way, that you do not consider the featuring of the Mazda RX-8 on today's front page of Wikipedia spamming?PointOfPresence (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you explain the link to a 5 day course at MIT being added at the foot of the Synthetic Biology article? This course costs a few thousand dollars! Or is it only "spam" if it's by non-profits outside the USA?! PointOfPresence (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm no fan of people who spam Wikipedia either, but don't you think this [3] was a little harsh? Unless I'm missing something, this user created an article, and it was speedy deleted. Then they re-created the article as their user page, and I nommed it for speedy deletion as well. Then you came in and issued a final warning even thought there had been no previous warnings. At the least, it was technically incorrect as it should have been an "only warning" but the real issue is that you should not bite the newcomers. Misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is and how it works are extremely common with new users, that is exactly why we have several different levels of warning templates, and a final warning should only be used if there is a persistent problem after previous warnings. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woops, I must have misread something. However, in my experience almost all users who spam do nothing but spam, and I use 4/4im warnings for blatant spamming. Triplestop x3 01:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must distinguish between a mere role account, which gets a "softblock"; and a spamusername. In the case of the above-named, it's a clear spamusername. This account has not merely edited the article about the named organization, with edits which make it clear that the account-user(s) regard him/her/themself/selves as representing the Press; in addition, the history of this account is one of creating articles about AUP authors and adding favorable content to articles about AUP authors. In more borderline cases, taking the account to COI/N may be advised instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to delete this as spam, because it isn't really the kind of advert that the criterion was designed to stop. However, it could be nominated for WP:MFD. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted a recent edit you made to this template. I've brought up a discussion about it at this page. ThemFromSpace 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See particularly my offer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes on my user talk page! Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Shield
		Just wanted to show my thanks for cleaning up some of the things my user talk page has been getting :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the username policy has underwent some changes as of yesterday. You may wish to look it over at your convenience. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew that I was probably missing something there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw you tagged me for spamming. I know it probably looks like I'm trying to promote the library, but in reality, there's a real danger of losing a lot of info about the history of the library because the articles/books I'm researching through are fairly falling apart. Should I find another place/way to record the history of the library? If wiki is not appropos, do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much for looking out for the community! --Maywoodlibrary (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the library is notable, then you could create a page on it, but you should real WP:COI Triplestop x3 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this edit constituted "trolling". However it is not your place to adjust such !votes in this way. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the preferred way of remedying this? Triplestop x3 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see from my comment that the closing bureaucrat will treat Spiritual Collector's !vote with the contempt that it deserves. There's no need to strike through the !vote. Perhaps you would consider removing your strikethrough? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Triplestop x3 20:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the case of This user that you blocked, could you perhaps delete the talk page too?  Chzz  ►  06:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block them, I am not an admin. I just censored their talk page. The previous contents of their page was deleted previously. Triplestop x3 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted all of those articles and informed the user. Those pictures he posted clearly weren't his and I called him on it. I might need to learn how to use Twinkle for massive deletions like this. Took me what felt like a week.  :) Thanks for the heads-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh, nice new tool...! That one just went on my faves list. Thanks for the link; that tool didn't exist before I'd left the project. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link here should help. Hu12 says clear them all out of Wiki mainspace. Forget Wikipedia pages and talk pages and page archives. Just mainspace pages for now. As long as it was used falsely reference an "idea"... then leave behind the text along with a {cn} tag. But if it seems to be quoting something directly (like one of their amateur hack reviews) then remove the quoted bit as well. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number has been cut down to 570. Triplestop x3 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 540 now thanks to your hard work. I have done a few cleanups. Plus.. strangely... I have picked up on an IP from Western Canada (a fairly regular IP editor) as well as an IP from Australia that have been working hard removing the links. So kudos to the community for helping to take out the trash. You should actually add the WP:ALBUM project page to your watchlist as the IP user who keeps re-adding these links has tried to remove the website from the Album Projects "do not use" list of non-professional review sites. Also worth watching is the 2009 in heavy metal music article. It has no metal-observer spam but the IP who keeps re-adding has a special fondness for that article and so it helps to track his daily IP switches simply by monitoring that page. All the IPs are one user who used to go under the account name "Prophaniti" You can look at that accounts last edit history before he supposedly quit... he had gone into a single purpose agenda of adding and protecting links to the metal-observer website. He claims to not be one of the unemployed students, plumbers or furniture movers that website uses for its "expert" staff reviews. But he seems awfully PO'd when anyone tries to remove one. Its a low quality sh*tty site... not worth defending... unless you are one of the sh*tty contributors to it. 99% of all webzines devoted to heavy metal are useless and should be blacklisted. So far I've managed to get 3 turfed... metal-observer will be lucky #4. Eventually ... hopefully... all amateur online heavy metal fanzines will be blacklisted from Wikipedia. All in due time. Thanks for your help. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to all your work in the "MO" cleanup. Perhaps, if have time, You could assist removing all the spammy/amateur "Sea of Tranquility" sites.(see link I copied for Master Hu12's talk page ) The Real Libs-speak politely 16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Thank you and you're welcome. =) He really tried to take it out on you. It was pretty funny. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that. Just the redirect left. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You redirected the above to Ten Commandments and the creator has undone this and requested a dialogue on consensus. I think it ought to be a rdr as well and have proposed such on the talk page. Cheers SGGH ^ping! 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the account is suspicious; it was created only a few days ago, and immediately it started creating articles and had good knowledge of Wikipedia's features. The IP you mentioned (Special:Contributions/144.26.92.12) belongs to blocked user User:ViperNerd, take a look here: [4]. Offliner (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account popped up around the time ViperNerd was blocked, and the IP was used to votestack on the AfD for Joklolk's page, so I strongly suspect there is a connection here. Triplestop x3 12:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Joklolk is ViperNerd. They mostly edit different kinds of articles, although there are some overlaps, such as this: [5][6]. Obviously, it appears that Joklolk is not the first account of this user, but I don't know who the master account would be. There are many editors with a similar POV on related subjects. Offliner (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure that you don't directly accuse people of being a sock without filing an SPI investigation - it falls under WP:CIV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user turned out to be something much worse. Triplestop x3 03:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the link at the foot of this page History_of_animal_testing. It is clearly spam for an activist group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.75.2 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads up. Triplestop x3 13:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the entry for Rainhill. In the 'People and culture' section I am not sure we really need to be treated to a few shameless plugs for the local restaurants, do we? 193.63.75.2 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget WP:ENT, as voice-over actors have a hard time meeting it. I am guessing that those suggesting he does not meet WP:AUTHOR based that opinion upon the 2 audio books in the original version of the article (now improved), and not upon a cursory look at Google Books. It seems Bollinger used his language skills to make the crossover from writing to acting and voicework, and has returned to books of late... now in audio format. Care to help me dig to see if his earlier books have received favorable reviews? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to suggest the books are notable nor much RS on him but I'm changing to keep since the career part seems to assert more major roles now. Triplestop x3 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I get time I'll be digging for reviews of his books and anything related to his voice work. Kids books usualy get reviewed someplace... and the ones he acted as translator may well have reviews in other languahes. Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You refused this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Virtual_Hunterston

I am totally confused i do not understand why, I thought it made it clear what it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.115.168 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I prove things I was born there I know the place like the back of my hand, all information is 100% accurate. I do not believe in lies feel free to contact PhilipsConnoco, Taylor Woodrow, Corus, Clydeport, Britsih Nuclear and magnox to verify all this, they are they ones that provided all information for the industrial sites and the main site is from personal experience and knowlege —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.115.168 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Actually, I doubt it's a specific ring, but probably a shared technique; that is, an attempt to leave up a page long enough to be picked up by Google but not long enough to be noticed by Wikipedia editors. When I come across them, I slap a {{db-author}} tag on them to be rid of them. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using Beta too? I have the nagging suspicion that, for instance in the application of speedies, two users can do so at almost the same time, without there being an edit conflict reported: just look at the history of the article. This time I beat another editor (you) to it; twice already today I place a speedy template and when I get to the editor's page for the notification I find that someone else actually placed the template and posted a warning--without ever seeing an edit conflict notice. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Twinkle to do it. You must have placed the speedy between the time TW checks the page and submits the speedy. TW does not handle edit conflicts. Triplestop x3 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, so it's your fault. I saw you reported the user name; thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd, this kid has just got to go. I am honestly sitting here in silent horror over this idiot's obsessive behavior. As I just told Vicenarian, there's a formal complaint to Bell South in the works, so all we can do is to wait. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin metal is being battled over and currently an AfD. I personally don't think it exists and have voted to delete. The debate is sorta dead-even Perhaps you could opine on it. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think the page should be kept. However I do get annoyed when people add the rescue thing causing the votestacking. Triplestop x3 16:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting IP 68.229.65.232 on my talkpage. Cheers ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what it said? Triplestop x3 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, however that IP is associated with this case. Quite a long history of abuse, including harassment of other Wikipedians. The attack on me was most assuridly based on the site being recently Blacklisted. I suspect there may be more attacks, Its the users MO. --Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It said "Hu12 is (name) from (school)". Don't worry though I had it oversighted Triplestop x3 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dattorro (talk · contribs) sent a duplicate of the post through Wikipedias mail system using the "Maldavir" (Maldavir (talk · contribs)) account. Since Dattorro has been blocked indeff for harassment, Maldavir (sockpuppet) is now as-well. --Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just CSD'D The ooze.com, and saw you had notified the user of the CSD but had not actually CSD'd the page? --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is getting a little buggy lately. Triplestop x3 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for seeing to my request at WP:VPT. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 17:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triplestop, I know you're a regular, but there was one report that doesn't quite violate the username policy.

• Ljmu123 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Made promotinoal edits to Liverpool John Moores University. Triplestop x3 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to notify you of this, because you obviously reported the username in good faith. We all make mistakes, especially me. Keep up the good work. ceranthor 12:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for speed deletion. --Feu Follet (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repost the page again, take it to WP:DRV if you want it kept. Thanks, Triplestop x3 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a new page. --Feu Follet (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I made the request for an account on the ACC site. Triplestop x3 03:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I have granted you access to the account creation tool; please be sure to read the guide before you start working there. Thanks for helping out! NW (Talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TripleStop,

I am working to edit the getaroom.com page to make it less spam-y and like an ad. That is not our intention, as we are just trying to create a page about the company. Could we take it down and have time to re-edit? Please let me know next steps and any suggestions for improvement.

Thank you. Knhall (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)knhall[reply]

Methinks our little menace took a tip from the one page out of MascotGuy's playbook or possibly Grawp's. How "original" of him. I've never seen mental illness like his up close like this before; it's truly frightening. I've always had a habit of reading things in both forward and reverse. I wish I were logged on when "Teletubbies suck" came up in reverse on the new user log!  :) I'm still waiting to hear back from one of the bureaucrats on this site whom I trust. I've told him of this little jackass and with any luck, he can get this issue resolved by a rangeblock or formal complaint. I'll also request a quick CU on that account since this was the last straw as far as I'm concerned. By that I mean that I will personally file a TOS violation complaint with BellSouth if this latest attack comes back as being from there. Thanks for the alert. If you so much as think you've spotted him again, please let me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm still awaiting on input from other checkusers. Other accounts you can find from there would be helpful. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot. MuZemike 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most paid editing is pretty innocuous however when the edits involve spam and sockpuppetry it becomes really hard to assume good faith. Triplestop x3 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't just paid editing, it was outright spam. I finished cleaning up everything I could find yesterday. Deleted about 10 articles, mass reverted a few more and a ton of removing spam links. Good catch. Brandon (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The user's behavior when approached about this problem made me more suspicious. Triplestop x3 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss where he was banned? Brandon (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#Proposed_ban_for_Elance_user_Tayzen The ban received unanimous support but was never actually enforced then. Triplestop x3 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Thanks. Brandon (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that he actually got blocked now. But do you have any idea what we can do about the fact that Desphiral has his own Wikipedia? I'm serious. He is the only administrator on the Vlax Romani wikipedia.

This is where the federalism of Wikipedia makes it hard to do anything. I brought it up on Meta, got the attention of a few MetaWikiGnomes who said "not my job and I don't care". For completeness, I brought it up on rmy:, where I was of course reverted as a vandal by Dear Leader Desiphral. I'd probably be banned if I brought it up again.

Not that it's clear what I'd even do... I found Wikipedia's second-most-active Vlax Romani speaker and asked him if he would be interested in stepping up as admin if I found a way to remove Desiphral, but never got a response to my odd request.

rspεεr (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is being discussed on the stewards mailing list. See m:WM:SPAM#tunisia.com. Mike Lifeguard says it is likely the community of rmywiki will be alerted and decide the fate of Desiphral. Personally I too am weary of a spammer having his own Wiki. Triplestop x3 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. Except rmywiki has no community, so that might get a bit difficult. Anyway, I'll leave it up to the stewards. rspεεr (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, where you said "Please also direct replies to my talk page", I am replying here to let you know that your e-mail has been received. If you could confirm that it was indeed you that sent that e-mail, that would be good, as asking for replies to be sent via a talk page is highly unusual. Is there a reason you want replies on your talk page and not by e-mail? Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it was indeed me who sent the email. I do not check my email very often hence the request, and because of the issue of transparency. Also, in regard to what I said in the email, I would like the arbcom to clarify what can be done about the incident as a whole, if possibe. Sorry if I am doing anything wrong, I am not familiar with the arbitration process. Thank you for your reply, Triplestop x3 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising an alarm and letting me know about Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#User:New_seeker. It is archived now, so I have no intention of answering there. But since you have asked, I am new here but I have found a lot of articles worthy only speedy deletion. Hence, I have decided to stick around to learn the AfD criteria and processes. I vote only when I have a clear opinion. Let me know if you have any problem with it. New seeker (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people come here unaware that Wikipedia has minimum notability requirements and other policies for new articles. Please do not give them a level 3 or 4 warning on their very first edit, unless you suspect sockpuppetry. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding long strings of nonsense text does not indicate good faith to me. Triplestop x3 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then a level 2 warning (no good faith assumed, but no bad faith either) is appropriate. User:MissAceBaby added such a string in an article about herself, perhaps thinking she was at a site similar to MySpace. As for attack pages, the threat of blocking is mentioned in {{subst:attack}}, and so there is no need for a separate warning. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a user who was submitting a strategic planning app, and indicating an interest (if you read closely) in helping wikipedia. Not suitable for a speedy, at least; and the current method of deleting userpages is surprisingly unfriendly -- it really doesn't offer a way for new editors to get their feet wet and encourages them to leave. +sj+ 06:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace abuse is a big issue, at times up to 20% of user pages are spam. Users like that constitute a spam username violation. In those cases the username is a bigger problem than the content. If the user wants to try to write that page then he will have to do so under a new name. The wording on the spamusername template explains it nicely. Triplestop x3 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd check with others. if your curious.--Hu12 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for your recent AIV report. I've blocked the user, but I was wondering if you'd consider reporting inappropriate usernames to WP:UAA instead. That's for when they're not actively vandalizing, of course; in this case, all is well, considering the user was actively vandalizing. If you have any question, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user's edits are a worse problem than the username, the username only adds to the user's vandalizing intent. Triplestop x3 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but you reported it as a username violation. I figured I'd just make sure you know what the appropriate venue is. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely stated the username as further evidence. Triplestop x3 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Glad everything's well, then :) Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Triplestop. I removed

• Mntm2009 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Triplestop x3 18:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that because I think that despite the fact that the username is actually a COI violation, it doesn't violate WP:U. Consider taking it to COIn. ceranthor 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the changes you made in the COI. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the policy as it was before was the result of a lot of discussion (see the talk page). We intend to review the policy in a couple of months, or sooner if there is abuse. But it seems like a good idea to keep it stable for a while. If you think it should be changed sooner, please discuss it on the talk page. I might agree with you. Keith Henson (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much support the changes that you made to the article, Triplestop. If nothing else they made it a lot more understandable. I also think that the firmer stance is appropriate. Maybe it should be discussed on the talk page of the guideline before the changes are implemented, but I would argue that they are correct. -- Atama頭 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't changing the actual substance of the provision, just clarifying policies that need to be followed anyway. Triplestop x3 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also would support this change, so perhaps it should be brought up at the talk page. ThemFromSpace 23:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you were not changing the substance. And I further agree that it will probably need to be clarified. But I think we should wait at least a few weeks if not a couple of months to see what is needed. If this COI exception gets abused then clarification will be needed sooner, or even the whole policy reverted. So far I am not aware of any abuse.

If you want to propose changes on the talk page, please do. For important policy like COI exceptions, I think discussion on the talk pages before making changes is a good idea. Looking back into the original discussion, it was you who came up with where to insert this policy change. Thanks very much. Keith Henson (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Triplestop's change and think it was silly to revert it. The meaning of the section didn't change at all; Triplestop was simply applying WP:WOTTA. Confusing terminology has no place in a policy aimed at newbies. rspεεr (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the whole series of problems between myself and libs started here, though at the time I was not aware that all of the users mentioned in the WQA were actually the same person: [7] ... it really doesn't matter to me what you think of my motivations, etc, - but this happened WAY before my article (one of over 100 I've created - and one of several Libs nominated for deletion at the same time, using sock puppets and canvassing - but you don't have to believe me about this) was nominated - or maybe even created. You don't have to believe me about any of the details following, about who I am, whether I had a COI on that page, etc, but I did want you to know that this feud started long before any of the COI or OUTING or whatnot. You don't even need to respond to this.. originally I thought you believed everything libs said, but after a few other things you've said, I thought you might want to know this.. and yes, I am retiring .. slowly, apparently. Luminifer (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse your removal of the Complex Converter [8] external link from the Measurements and Dimensional_Analysis pages. (See [[9]] and [[10]].) I developed this algorithm to perform unit conversions that most converter algorithms are incapable of handling. This link gives users free access to a very useful tool for educational, research and professional work. I believe that you should examine it before deleting it because you are removing a unique function from the Wikipedia that helps users. MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this fails our external link guideline. Please also our policy on conflicts of interest. Triplestop x3 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's userspace, even though it's promotional; he just asked me on my talk page on how to create an article "like Vita Coco has". I'm afraid this may get carried away. But anyway, it's inappropriate userpage content at most, isn't it? ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 00:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, deleted. It actually got deleted. Gets me to wondering. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its an advertisement for a user with a spam username. These are quite common, its a violation of both advertising and username policies. Tons of these are gotten rid of at wp:UAA daily. Triplestop x3 00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know he's got a spam username, I just wasn't sure about tagging the page when you could've just reported him to WP:UAA. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could reverse the early closure of my RfA as i am fully aware of the low chance however i would like my RfA to last longer than five seconds and would appreciate more than just one Admins input. CrossHouses (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected his page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious why the link to carly-pope.com was removed? The Carly Pope article has basically been built off of that site (the career section was taken word for word even).--Csylcox (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my own Talk page to add a sense of humor. Is that really a crime? I just wanted to lighten up the mood; a warning was not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You re-factored another user's message to make it look like they are saying something negative. This is considered a personal attack. Furthermore, changing others' comments is a big no-no. Triplestop x3 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that that would be considred a personal attack. my pardon is extended to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be able to delete your warning for me? Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"my intentions were wrong, but what I did was perfectly acceptable"? So you admit you were acting in bad faith? How can we be convinced that you will not repeat this malicious behavior? Triplestop x3 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like a second chance to prove it. I think you may have read my message out of context. I was replying to the previous administrator's message to me. To put everything back in context, let me explain exactly what happened. Pleasantville sent me a nasty message which could have been stated in a kinder fashion. Since I did not like this, it was my pleasure to correct her poorly investigated research. This was mistaken as me advocating for some domain that I don't own or care about it. Had she made those incorrect comments on another page, I would have just as gladly corrected them there. In my responses to Pleasantville, I only stated that her research was not accurate, and I corrected it. Nothing else. Was I doing it because she sent me a nasty message? Yes. But that doesn't mean she didn't need to be corrected. I believe this community is about accurate information, and I was contributing. Please let me know what I need to do here? I don't see a point in creating a new account. I like my user name Cwiker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.213.112 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will alert an admin to your message. Triplestop x3 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.213.112 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there triplestop. Just stopping by to let you know that I changed the CSD you placed on this article from CSD A7 to CSD G10 . I feel that a personal attack is more important then the notability issue, and using G10 draws administrator's attention to it faster. Please make sure that you read all the way through pages before tagging, and if there are any attacks remove them while deletion is pending (even if you don't use g10). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Thanks, Triplestop, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in a hurry? ~ R.T.G 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you choose this section.--Dojarca (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I moved it to the right place. Thanks, Triplestop x3 02:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now pretty sure that AmateurEditor is in fact Ultramarine, a user who edited Wikipedia since early 2005 and abandoned Wikipedia just 4 days before AmateurEditor appeared first. Ultramarine was also havily involved in The Black Book of Communism and related topics.--Dojarca (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]