User talk:Curps

archive1 archive2 archive3 archive4 archive5 archive6 archive7 archive8 archive9 archive10 archive11 archive12 archive13 archive14 archive15 archive16 archive17

69.235.202.57

I will promise to stop vandalizing.

69.235.202.57

Curps, I pledge to stop vandalizing.

Toolserver

If you are not already aware of it, I urge to join the m:Toolserver. Hats off to you for your vandalism fighting. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

- Thanks for your cleanup efforts with that new WoW account :-) --HappyCamper 15:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Block showing user number

WHy do some IP blocks show a user number instead of a name? Rich Farmbrough 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Stars

Well, I consider it worthwhile. We're talking about their notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56 Aquilae. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Precious

By the authority vested in me as, uhm, some random guy on the web, I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for keeping the vandal bots at bay. MarkSweep✍ 07:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblock

Just to note that I've unblocked an autoblock for a user sharing an IP address with User:Kat Fletchers smug face; they e-mailed me and have edited in the past without any problems, their explanation is that a housemate was vandalising Wikipedia and they have now stopped them using their machine. Warofdreams talk 17:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

CURPS - YOU ARE A ROUGE ADMIN AND SHOULD BE DESYSOPPED! PS - Keep up the good work →Raul654 09:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It Looks Like You Beat Me To The Punch

I was going to block User:Bonefuck until 1 Jan 2754, but I guess "infinite" works just as well ;-) Karmafist 05:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am in love

...well no, but this blocking of vandalism is amazing.

Molotov (talk)
04:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to second that comment about blocking of vandalism. I was going to check out this member who's username was only numbers, and when I saw the contribs, and history, and that you had reverted his/her vandalism so quickly, I was surprised. Bravo!--ViolinGirl^♪ 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

checkuser

A a supplement to expanded use of Checkuser (or alternative if it's vetoed by the powers-that-be), how about Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#.22Rip.22ping and ToSsing major .28Willy-style.29 vandals? -- Curps 05:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've given up on all that. On that topic: since you already run a block bot, would you like to take over supporting the POPbot blocks? I've given up on popbot too, but it seems like a bit of a waste to just unblock them all again, so if you'd be willing to handle the questions and complaints or know someone who would be, that would be nice. --fvw* 22:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Who are you?

Who are you and why did you put this edit on my personal, private scratch page? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• laffo, I can't wait to see you add User:Curpsbot-unicodify to your list of Liberal Cabalers--anon editor 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wacky username vandalism

Hey, is there anyway to simply block the IP or IP ranges responsible for those usernames? --Madchester 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't tell you about it. (insert Defender of the Wiki barnstar here) for blocking all those supertroll accounts. Alphax ^τεχ 18:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblock Me

Curps, can you please unblock me(User:Superm401 with IP User:68.80.134.151. See explanation at User talk:Superm401 and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical#Usernames with "$ + digit":. I posted at User talk:Superm401 using my own user name, so you can verify that this request is genuine. I was investigating your $-digit display bug, and you or your bot blocked me. :) 152.163.101.11 20:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)(User:Superm401)

Sorry

Gah! I can't believe I did that. I'm sorry. :( -- My apologies.

When I pulled up the page history, I had two browsers open, one on your page, and one on Kurps. I guess I got confused and mistook it for a pagemove. It was only after I deleted the page and tried to move it back that I realized it wasn't the case. --HappyCamper 21:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Although I am on a "wiki-vacation", Ill make you an exeption. You have been given a few barnstars for fighting vandalism so far, that is of course less than the level of commendation you should recieve. You are doing one hell of a job in handling the apathy of vandals. Most recent supertroll idiocity is a shining example of your efforts.

I am here to notify you of a Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit which you may find useful. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Heck, that was fast... 01313 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Protecting Schnorrer

Good timing, that! I have to leave soon for work... Cheers, --Fire Star 22:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop

so far, for most of the edits that i have made today, you have delete and gave some lame exuse. Instead of just delteing everything that i make, how about you edit it instead and make some corrections. You are deafeating the whole purpose of wikipedia if nobody can edit it. -- unsigned message by Jakewater (talk · contribs)

Well, you added your own birthday to July 21. You created 2990s for a stub article with zero content about a decade that won't happen for 1000 years... that article has now been deleted 13 times (although many of the previous creations months ago presumably weren't you). I also deleted Sam foran which you created at 21:20, 24 October 2005... its entire contents were 'Sam Foran is a poopie pie poop cake dukiesh yakish poop head cake cake yummy poop'. -- Curps 02:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop #2

Ok, first of all, that was my couisin's birthday, and he is actualy a very popular violinist. The Sam Foran article i did not create, that was probably my little brother, i will make sure that doesnt happen agian. The article i made about the Scopes trial, instead of totaly deleting what i wrote, you could have just edited for me and fixed the mistakes. What i am about to say is not to critize you, i am going to say this to help you in becoming a beter wikipedia user: Think about what you are doing before you do it, and also, instead of deleting everything, think of an alternitive.

You didn't write the article about the Scopes Trial, you simply added a single phrase. The phrase stated that the jury decided to charge Darrow with contempt, which I reverted with an explanation for the reason (I don't believe it's up to a jury to file charges of contempt of court, so I don't believe that was accurate or correct) [1]. "Totally deleting" a single phrase (with explanation) is a normal part of the editing process. -- Curps 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Do You Keep Blocking My Legitimate Usernames

Hiya Crups. In the past 10 minutes you've permanently blocked two usernames I've created before I've had the chance to use them, Fascism Rules and I Am A Fan Of Nazism. You have not given legitimate reasons for the blocking of these. I did not intend to vandalize anything. Could you please offer an explanation of this behavior? I merely figured that if a neutral encyclopedia tolerates users with explicitly anti-fascist sentiments in their usernames, they should also tolerate users with explicitly pro-fascist sentiments in their usernames. Where does my logic fail? 200.168.39.90 05:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Username regarding potentially offensive or inflammatory usernames. -- Curps 05:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you've blocked my IP because I created the username The Fascΐst Kids Are Alright. This is a neutral encyclopedia. How is it that you can abide names like NazismIsntCool but not my choices? That doesn't seem fair at all. I've perused Wikipedia:Username and there is no way my usernames can be considered inappropriate if NazismIsntCool is appropriate. So it's OK to be one of kind of idealogue, but not another? Is that the message you're sending? Please refrain from blocking my further attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. 81.215.10.113 05:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In principle, you could create "SocialismIsntCool" and that probably wouldn't be considered inflammatory per se, although it might be blocked if it was clearly intended as a spoof or attack on the existing user "NazismIsntCool". Your problem is, in general public opinion in the real world, espousing pro-Nazi or pro-fascist sentiment is considered inflammatory and disparaging such sentiments is not considered inflammatory, and the situation on Wikipedia simply reflects that. -- Curps 05:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But if that's the case, why did you block "AntifascismIsBad"? That was clearly not intended as a spoof or an attack. I would have followed your suggestion exactly, but there is a difference between Socialism is not Antifascism. Anyway, I think tolerating one kind of rhetoric and quashing another in knee-jerk fashion is blatantly POV. 67.180.160.119 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Username blocks are recorded in the block log, which is visible to all admins (and non-admins). If any other admin thinks the block is unwarranted, they could unblock. If that doesn't happen, well, draw your own conclusion. -- Curps 06:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't give me that mealy-mouthed argument. You know as well as I do that few people monitor the block log for inappropriate blocks, and fewer still (if anyone) care enough to unblock people even when they were clearly unjustly banned. If you want to put it to forum-wide vote, that's another matter, but this is unilateral, biased, draconian action. Now you've blocked National Socialist. Have I ever given any indication to you that I might be a vandal? Absolutely not. I really wish you would stop this unbidden attempt to keep an individual whose point of view is different from yours from contributing to Wikipedia. 80.189.221.6 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect, quite a number of admins monitor the block log. And "National Socialist" is an inflammatory username as per Wikipedia:Username. If you wish to call a "forum-wide" vote to try to change existing practice, that's up to you. -- Curps 06:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun

Why did you block my six other accounts, including User:fESTERING hEAD wOUND, after I wrote lengthy articles about each of my nine cats named "Fluffy"? Don't delete Fluffy (cat) (disambigtion) again! And letting the d*rn anti-head wound Mafia to run amok is POV. ALL YOUR MICES AR PWNS L33T AAAAARGH!!!!

PS: C, I wish I could be as amusing as some of your other pen pals. Keep up the good work. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 05:34 Z

Please Explain

So you blocked AntifacsismIsBad prima facie (no pun intended), I see. Now this is ludicrous. You must explain how AntifascismIsBad is unacceptable but NazismIsntCool is. NazismIsntCool states an opposition to a controversial idealogy. AntifascismIsBad does, too. What's the difference? And don't use the "impersonation" argument, because it isn't. I really would like an explanation. 60.50.121.108 05:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Fash-ism!. I demand a cessation of and an explanation for this hypocrisy. 67.180.160.119 05:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See above. I'm not applying some personal policy, just general Wikipedia practice. If I hadn't blocked them, some other admin would have, fairly rapidly. -- Curps 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not "applying some personal policy", huh? I find it highly bemusing that your talk page is rife with debates over the (so-called) "Yom Kippur War" and Nazist/Nazi. It's obvious you have a vested agenda against Nazi fascists, to which I must object. Anti-fascsist hate has been plaguing the civilized world for too long and I'd like it to stop. I think on a global neutral forum such as this, you must be open to people with viewpoints other than yours. 80.189.221.6 06:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read those discussions. For instance, the issue with "Nazist" is that it's not an English word. -- Curps 06:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop blocking my good-faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. In keeping with your consistent practice, you have blocked me before I even had a chance to make an edit. How is "The Far Right Is Far Out" offensive or inflammatory? What is wrong with you? Why do you interpret such harmless names as inflammatory remarks? Do you have some sort of complex? It's not like I tried calling myself I Hope Your Grandparents Were Gassed To Death In An Auschwitz Oven. 148.235.66.115 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, please enlighten me: how do I call a forum-wide vote to call into question your dubious practices? 148.235.66.115 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You could take a look at Wikipedia:Request for comments. -- Curps 06:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Bovinae

On the page Bovinae there is a vandalism I guess, have a look there, -jkb- 08:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

block

User:Bluemoose would like you to unblock him, see [2]. Sam Spade 18:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The underlying IP is now unblocked. I didn't block him per se, I blocked the newly created User:Bluebot, because it doesn't seem to have been discussed at Wikipedia:Bots or its talk page, because we had the sock User:Blue Moon Cocktail Bar earlier today, and because of the trouble we had with spoof vandalbots like User:Uncle Ed's major work 'bot. He unblocked User:Bluebot himself, perhaps he could have gone ahead and unblocked the underlying IP as well. -- Curps 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you didnt mean to block me, I tried to unblock the IP but I couldn't find any record of it being blocked, also it might be a good idea to enable an email so people can contact you if you block them by accident. p.s. I know the bot hadn't been discussed, but it also hadn't been used. thanks Martin 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

When you go to Special:Ipblocklist, you may need to scroll past the default 100 entries, eg: view 500 entries, by clicking in the "View (previous 100) (next 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)." line. As for blocking an account before it's used, well, that's occasionally done intentionally, given the vandal silliness recently. For instance, two recent spoof Uncle G bots: User:Uncle G's NEW Major Work Bot and User:Uncle G's 2nd Major Work Bot. -- Curps 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's cool, you don't need to explain yourself. Good job on all those other blocks! thanks Martin 22:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Unblock

I'm unblocking 64.36.3.34 (your infinite block of November 1) following a request Jimbo forwarded to the wikien-l mailing list. Charles Matthews 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Impostor

Curps, when blocking a new incarnation of the Doppelganger vandal, please do not put "spoof of So-and-so" in the summary, and do not delete the user and talk pages. Place the {{impostor}} templates in both the user and talk pages, and please don't write "cloned spoof page" in the edit summary. Thanks. Don Diego^(Talk) 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll use the impostor templates and the phrasing "impostor" instead of "spoof". -- Curps 22:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I endorsed the anonymous guy's statement on the RfC. I find it a black hypocrisy to selectively target ideological usernames based on personal political preference. Peace And Love 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for posting to my RfC and my talk page only 3 minutes and 8 minutes, respectively, after registering your account. I'd post a welcome message with useful links to your talk page, but you seem to already know your way around here. I'm glad you were able to pick a suitable non-inflammatory username. -- Curps 22:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Unicode chart templates

I wonder if you would be OK if I tagged (or even all) some of these for deletion. I have been tweaking "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Unicode) (draft)" which I think is pretty excellent, and in parallel I have noticed that there seem to be obsolete versions of each table template, specifying the actual font (see here for a full list). I don't think we actually need these now, so should we delete the redundant ones or REDIRECT? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for your bot

Just noticed one thing that could possibly be refined in your bot. See this [3] edit. It changed [[Brandenburg_%28disambiguation%29|Brandenburg (disambiguation)]] into [[Brandenburg (disambiguation)|Brandenburg (disambiguation)]]. Would have made more sense if it just changed it to [[Brandenburg (disambiguation)]]. chowells 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was already changed to do that. That was one of the earlier edits. -- Curps 18:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Block of WorldTraveller

I use wikipedia both at home and at school, and my home IP has been banned. I'm writing this while on the school computers. Apparently you have blocked someone named "Worldtraveller" and because of this my home IP has been blocked. I don't know why this is, but please fix this. --Hurricane Angel 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

01 ! Reverts

Hi Curps, thanks for reverting those pages that 01 ! moved today. It was funny, the moment I noticed he was vandalizing pages, I added a note to his page. Apparently I wasn't the only one -- two other people also warned him at the same time! Anways... you saved me some trouble fixing some pages :). --mdd4696 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Block of Francs2000

Hi, just to let you know that the doppelganger was created by me, to prevent someone else from doing it. I just had to unblock my own IP. -- Francs2000 11:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Block

Mostly just to be safe. I've seen some strange reports of IP's that got double blocked actually being able to edit, so -- one block is enough, I noticed that you'd already blocked so I figured I'd just lift it to be on the safe side. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, since those are all anagrams of your name, have you considered just preemptively blocking any other strange anagrams of your name? (Oh, I also blocked Skrof.) Must say your block script is impressive. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well that quite changes things doesn't it! I hadn't realized that. The pertinent bit here being as long as the two blocks are of equal length. Learn something new every day. Thanks. I'll re-block if you haven't already. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, particularly since the MO seems to be to make one edit, then switch accounts and make another edit. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You've got some "admirers"

Hey Curps, there are some dopplegangers no doubt itching to make trouble for you, they popped up at around 19:36, 29 October 2005. Just thought i'd let you know, I blocked three. Karmafist 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

New users

If you're around you had better check the new user log. Time to get the block bot running again I think. the wub "?!" 22:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

article moves

Thank you for adding User:Reader72s crap to Wikipedia again. -- Mkill 22:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely reverted your improper page moves. Articles that need to be improved should be edited in place, not "kidnapped" into your user space, especially since there are many other editors who have edited these articles. -- Curps 23:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I put them on AfD. There are too many nice people on Wikipedia with a too high crap tolerance. Now their time is wasted further. By the way, the articles are not bad quality translations from Japanese, the author is a native Spanish speaker. At least research into the history of some bad articles before posing as Wikipedia police. -- Mkill 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit articles in place or nominate for AfD. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Curps 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Curps, Thank you for your help with the article I began (Klooga concentration camp). I hadn't been able redirect the page from the typo "Klooga concentraion camp". I greatly appreciate your promptness and helpfulness! ExRat 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalbots and such

Hey Curps! I blocked a handfull of possible vandalbots just today, and I was wondering if they would have been caught by the algorithm that you are using for blocking them? If you get a chance, could you take a look at my block log? Here's my block log for your convenience: [4]. Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 14:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you!

Thanks for blocking the two vandal accounts that were also impersonating me. --Ixfd64 22:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to fix the superfluous & in the Goleta Slough article

You might want to check the article carefully for the superfluous ampersand, which was reintroduced when you fixed the problem I caused by my attempt to conform to the ISO 8859-1 Character standard.—GraemeMcRae^talk 22:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks.—GraemeMcRae^talk 23:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

POPBot

You may want to check out the history of Mammal. A vandal using open proxies, including ones that were previously indef blocked according to the evidence from the POPBot, has been using these IPs. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 20:59

Noob123, Torchris

Well, the first one screams vandal, the 2nd one started with Tor, so maybe I went too far with that one. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-1 08:23

Doppelganger accounts

I was trying to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Doppelganger to keep imposters from registering variations of my username, but after about the seventh account that I registered, either you or your bot apparently blocked the accounts permanently and blocked my IP address for 24 hours. (I'm using a different computer now.) Anyhow, I suppose it's OK that the doppelgangers are blocked, but there are several (at least 136) more variations of my username that vandals could potentially use to impersonate me. Do I need to register those as doppelgangers too? And, if so, how can I do it without having my IP blocked? --TantalumTelluride 18:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

delete history

Can you delete my user page's history and my talk page's history and my user contribution's history? I want to delete this account. thanks(Jessica Liao 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

OK for the first two, but there's not way to delete user contribution history (contributions to deleted pages go away, but contributions to still-existing pages remain). -- Curps 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Innocent block

Hi, I would just like to let you know that a recent block you made on a user with the IP 202.156.6.54 resulted in me being blocked as well. I sent an email to Rob, who unblocked the IP for me as I could not contact you.

Hope you may help look into this. Different admins have blocked my IP range three times for the past 6 days, as has happened before.--Huaiwei 09:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of silsor's "RfA"

Curps, I think Kim Bruning's request was very reasonable, considering we seem closer to a consensus to keep this in WP:RfA than to remove/move it. This nomination runs out in just over four days. I think silsor, and most people interested in this discussion, deserve to have it left on the RfA page unless consensus changes or a steward decides otherwise. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not up to a steward to make a simple editing decision like this, that's reaching way, way too high in the hierarchy. KimBruning's edit summary of "don't remove this unless you are a steward" was entirely out of line. I wouldn't pursue an edit war over it, but I'm considering filing a "request to eat the delicious jelly-filled donuts on my kitchen table". -- Curps 16:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Support! - I think you've earned those donuts. Let me summon a bureaucrat to promote us some coffee. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia Signpost

Curps, thanks for blocking User:Wikipedia Signpost, but I've unblocked it now — I created it after Ral's suggestion (and I'm also involved with the Signpost), so it's legitimate. I was kind of wondering how long it would take to be blocked... I probably should have left a message from my account on there. Thanks anyways for your vigilance. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for blocking it, even though it was created by Flcelloguy. Ral315 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, that's the 4th imposter of me, and a person who has created dozens of sockpuppets. See the history of Iraqi insurgency. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 02:26

• Also, anyone who is a new account and edits at Iraqi insurgency should be indef banned as a sockpuppet of the original person who was avoding 3RR and has since created dozens of sockpuppets. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 03:07
  • I would have rather kept it unprotected so at least the person doesnt vandalize another page instead, one that we might not all notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 03:19

Wikipedia sandwich

This user contacted me via e-mail, asking me to unblock them. Your message when blocking was "please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page". I presumed the primary reason for blocking them was their potentially confusing username? -- user:zanimum

Tag team terror

Nice work with willy earlier today. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Urgent vandal

Diacrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked) - persistent user who creates numerous user names to remove Template:Foreignchar from various articles. Created user names include: User:Jeaijij, User:Agraman, User:Oagafauou, User:Qesecaue, User:Uefot, User:Huaelo, User:Bifo, User:Timoa, User:Feoouubiao, User:Eooaqinol, User:Xeuuces, and that's only ones I have caught on recent changes page. Most of them have only 1 edit. And the list keeps growing every second! Just look at new user log. Renata3 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you reverting this vandal today. Please see the sockpuppet list from yesterday at User_talk:Who#On-going_vandalism. And as you know, there are much more today, like user:-Chippy-. Is there a possibility to block the IP? Renata3 12:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see it's still around and you are still blocking & reverting it. Thank YOU. I have read your upset thoughts on notice board... Well, I cannot say much. Just wish you strength and persistance. Prove them all wrong! Don't let them brake you :) Renata3 05:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

(Firefly episode)

You only use extra modifiers when ambiguity is present in the first modifier. Things like Serenity (Firefly episode) or Ariel (Firefly episode) get this treatment, because there are other things with the same name in Firefly. Safe (Firefly) doesn't, because there's no ambiguity within Firefly. Our Mrs. Reynolds is not the name of anything else, so it gets no parenthesis. Why decrease memory and title aesthetic when it is not necessary? --Apostrophe 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that. Personally, I'd prefer title aesthetic over the hypothetical and easily-fixable mistake of linking to the wrong article. --Apostrophe 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Impersonator alert

I just saw Friday blocked a user called User:Pablo Agosto for one hour for vandalism. That Pablo Agosto is spanich for User:Paul August. I told Friday about this but looks like she logged out. Asking you instead for the permanent block. Thanks --JAranda | watz sup 04:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Could u unblock the Ip number that was with User:ARANDA56 thats a Doppelganger account I created and now wont let me edit. Thanks --JAranda | watz sup 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jaranda and Arando56 I created those as dogglegaggers to avoid impersonations which I know many people do. Thanks --JAranda | watz sup 20:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Doppelganger blocked

User:Fantastic Door on Wheels is NOT a Willy on Wheels sockpuppet, and is my doppelganger account - see user page for User:Fantastic Door on Wheels. Please unblock it if you can. Thanks. --Fantastic Door (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We need more information. -- Curps 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Which you have now provided [5]. -- Curps 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

82.42.151.164

Very interesting indeed. I'm curious to know what DG has to say. Sometimes WP:AGF collides with common sense. Antandrus (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

See [6] -- Curps 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I wonder if I'll have one of those "I'm so innocent it was my brother using my keyboard while I was on the phone" e-mails now. Antandrus (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

Could you look into 213.42.2.21 thru .29 being blocked and see if I my account can be allowed to edit. About half-an-hour to do an edit. Why no e-mail? Marskell 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

9 out of 10 at the moment:

You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your IP address is 213.42.2.26. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Curps.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Fuckjapan". The reason given for Fuckjapan's block is: "user...".

You can email Curps or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

If you would like to know when the block will expire, please see the block list.

If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature.

Marskell 19:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Or just hope it goes away. It sucks. Like rain--sometimes it's poring (trying to edit is useless) and sometimes you get a brief window where nothing is falling (right now, apparently). My ISP won't do shit having contacted them before. I've had the problem for months, only particularly impossible to edit the last two days. So it goes. I waste too much time here anyway. Marskell 22:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

I noticed you blocked User:Piper- because their name resembles the 0-edit user User:Piper. Since you came to this conclusion, I thought I'd alert you of another account you should block: User:Tom-, as an impersonation of User:Tom. Thanks. --24.224.153.40 22:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Piper-, thanks for pointing that out. -- Curps 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

85.97.139.130

Hi Curps, sorry about the jiggerypokery. 85.97.139.130 is User:Cool Cat but it seems his machine has been compromised. The unblock was a test. It should probably stay blocked until he reinstalls. silsor 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

He's running another test for which we'll unblock. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell is going on, according to the etheral feed there is no one there, yet edits do happen. Maybe you have a suggestion? --Cool Cat ^Talk 08:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unicodify bot

Hi, is the code of your bot available? I would like to try it out on the Dutch wikipedia. Thanks, – gpvos (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Block

I removed the block initially because it was, in fact, the IP address of a known and trusted vandalism remover. However, discussion in the IRC channel indicates that Cool Cat has suffered some sort of attack, meaning that his IP address now also generates vandalism.

While the discussion is ongoing, and until Cool Cat can isolate the problem and remove it, I don't think there'll be any objections to blocking further vandals - I ought to have reblocked, and I should have advised you. My apologies. Rob Church ^Talk 00:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think its sorted now. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things

Why are you not contacterble by email? "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !" is not a helpful reason for blocking.Geni 07:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As an admin who uses block useing email is really optional.Geni 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I second this. Some of your block messages (as seen on #wikipedia-en-vandalism) are really useless. Alphax ^τεχ 13:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking my impersonators

Thanks. Jobe6 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Würzburg radar

There is no consensus on this issue. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). It would seem to me that the best solution is to leave the article under Primary Author as we do for CE AE disputes. In this case the primary author spelt it "Wuerzburg radar" and many Engish refrences spell it Wuezburg radar as does the primary source for this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You have moved it back. Persumably while I was trying to leave a message on this talk page which seems to be rather busy at at the moment. Someone has now locked the page by editing it with a second edit using a new user name "P.B.S." Please remove that locking edit and move the page back, as it must be clear to you that you do not have a consensus for the move. If you wish to move it lets do it throught the regular method of using WP:RM for "controversial moves". I feel that it is up to you to achive a consensus for the move to a new name rather than for me to achive a consensus to move it back. Philip Baird Shearer 19:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

By Primary author I mean:

See WP:MOS#National varieties of English "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article."

and WP:UE "American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa; for example, either Colour or Color is acceptable."

I would seem to me that if this was applied to funny foreign squggles diacritics there would be a lot less of this type of argument.

By Primary source mean see: Würzburg radar#References

But in the mean time please move it back and put in a WP:RM for the move if you want one--Philip Baird Shearer 19:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no "healthy majority" which could be called a consensus or even a "rough consensus" with the very low figure used by WP:RM which many feel is too low!

We do not need to stick to one style any more than we need to have one spelling version. I am VERY leary of your argument "The city is at Würzburg, and ...", that is why I got involved in the debate in the first place. I wrote an article on the Battle of Zurich (one and two) and someone changed it because of the current spelling of Zurich, yet most military books I have read on the Napoleonic Wars spell it Zurich. I have not attempted to move it back (yet) because I decided to try to get a consensus on this issue, and have been trying to do so for a year.

Which google are you using? Because on both google.co.uk and google.co.com "Würzburg radar" and "Wuersburg radar" wrap into one without the ususal ablity to put "Wuersburg radar" -Würzburg an both return only abut 4,000 pages. "Würzburg radar" also returns pages like this www.combinedops.com/Bruneval.htm which has only "Wursburg radar" on it!

"and I assert that for routine non-famous names pages can be moved to the diacritic version without further ado." is hardly the words of someone seeking to build a consensus. I have suggested a compromise on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#An attempt to build a consensus have a look and see what you think. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking users

I'm trying to (slowly) learn the things I need to understand to get better at this admin stuff. I noticed that you gave Aranda56 an infinite block but I don't really see why. Also, this user Prini made two user page moves. Should I have blocked him or is the warni9ng OK? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't block Aranda56, just impostors of him (like Aranda56%). -- Curps 20:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see it now, Aranda56", but when I clicked the link it leads to Aranda56 and that's what confused me. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad links

Would Curpsbot-unicodify be able to fix some or all of the problems listed under "Encoded characters" on Wikipedia:Bad links? -- Beland 23:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry I've been neglecting the unicodify bot for a while, I've been busy with other bot-related activities and didn't have time to review its edits. I fired it up again and am running it on your list. Note though that the bot will currently skip any page that contains the <math> tag as well as template pages. -- Curps 02:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. -- Beland 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Email

Greetings! Thanks for all the work you're doing to stop vandalism. However, I notice you don't have an email address set: I've gotten a couple messages both at the Wikipedia contact address and through Wikipedia email from people who were caught in your blocks mentioning that they tried to contact you and couldn't. Since you do a lot of blocking, would you mind setting an email address in your preferences so that you can handle the collateral damage yourself? I know you've said elsewhere that you don't use email; would you consider using a throwaway account solely for Wikipedia purposes -- or at least mentioning on your userpage some way by which mistakenly blocked users can contact you? Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sperm Whale

Hi. Would you be able to run your bot through Sperm Whale? Thanks. --Hottentot

Well, by default the bot doesn't change &ndash; and &mdash; so it wouldn't do anything, because not everyone approves of changing those (too hard to tell &ndash; from hyphen in the edit window. I could set a flag so that it changes them regardless... is that what you're requesting? -- Curps 05:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just that a lot of the links have underscores in them. --Hottentot

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Email contact

Hi, I just got an email from somebody you blocked who had set up an account that looked like an IP address in order to test whether it could be done. When she tried to log back on she could not, because her IP address had been autoblocked. Unfortunately she could not email you to request it be cleared. Looking upwards on this page, it seems that I'm the sixth person in the last two weeks who has noticed that your lack of an email address is a problem when you are placing so many blocks. silsor 06:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism blocked

I put a 24 hour blcok on IP address 210.213.151.42. Vaoverland 07:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia position

You stated that it might be a good idea to consider a full-time paid position in the Wikimedia foundation that deals with ISPs' Abuse departments to counteract vandalism for the next fundraising drive. I can't find the edit where you made the proposal at most detail. Do you mind finding that diff, or better, start a Open letter to the board about that? Titoxd^(?!?) 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is something that our legal dept needs to handle. If and when we hire somebody to handle that sort of thing is an open matter. Of more immediate importance is the hiring of another developer and then an experienced executive assistant to take over from Danny Wool so he can concentrate on grant writing (he is currently our interim executive assistant). A letter to the board will be much less effective than participating in the budgeting process for next year. See meta:Finance Department. --mav 19:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not saying those are not important, but it definitely is something that needs to be done sooner than later. [This is the diff in which he described in detail his proposal. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking and email

Hey Curps -

Could you put your email in your user prefs and set your account to accept email? This is really needed for anybody who blocks other users and IPs since every so often the block hits people who are innocent bystanders and sometimes the blocks are mistaken (we are all human here :). Such a person contacted me to lift a block you placed on a user name that looked like an IP. He was not aware of a policy against that and the block also blocks his real account. Thanks! :) --mav 19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

?

Can you unblock User:207.156.196.242? Everytime I try to edit with my account, they tell me I'm not allowed to edit. (Kyla 21:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

Then I guess it should work when I edit in school. That's the school's IP address. (Kyla 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

O0wenX

Cool! My first impostor! I guess that's a rite of passage, of sorts... Thanks for the quick block! Owen× ☎ 01:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Doppelganger on User:Bratsche. (with a full stop)

Umm, I had the obviously not-so-great idea of creating a couple of doppelganger accounts so I didn't get my name slandered. However, they were promptly block by your (user...) bot. I've been unblocked, but this is just to let you know. I think I'll leave the usernames up to you from now on... Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

delete history

Can you delete my user page and talk page's history? I don't want to use it anymore. I'm getting too addicted to Wikipedia. (Kyla 23:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for blocking the Wik sockpuppets on Empire of Atlantium

Thank you for blocking the Wik sockpuppets on Empire of Atlantium. Whenever Wik shows up again, Gene Poole gets upset and has a hard time acting in a civil manner. Samboy 05:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Requesting an Unblock

I am posting this message on behalf of a friend of mine (User:Callisto`) who would like to get his account Callisto` and IP 60.224.52.28 unblocked. He says that he would contest the block himself however is unable to edit this page. The block says he is an imposter of a user User:Callisto although no user nor talk page exists for this user. He said to make a note on the talk page of Curps.

I can assure you that User:Callisto` is not attempting to impersonate any other member. Callisto is his online alias and this can be verified at his Battlefield 2 stats profile and HLFallout.net staff account profile. To my knowledge he has no history of vandalism on Wikipedia. There also appears to be no record of him being warned before being blocked.

Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this matter,

Juice 12:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The original User:Callisto has only a single edit, dating back to over a year ago ([7]), so the above request rings true. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

delete talk page's history

Can you delete my talk page's history? Apparently people aren't getting the message that I am not coming on Wikipedia. (Kyla 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

User page of es.wikipedia vandalized

Your user page in the spanish wiki was vandalized by the ip 201.127.33.199 and I reverted the edit.
Cheers, 213.194.160.36 02:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) (aka es:Usuario:Flextron)

Unicodify source

I'm wondering if you'd make the source of your Unicodify bot available? I'm interested in running it on a different wikipedia to change all the interwiki links to proper Unicode characters. Thanks. DHN 08:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

SUPER COOL!

The vandalbot was replacing the sandbox header with the content; I am simply adding it below. --SPUI (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

delete accounts

Can you delete Kyla and Jessica Liao? Someone is bothering me and I can't get him to not chat with me. I am using my computer's IP address b/c I don't want to use those. (69.117.27.68 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

The user pages and their talk pages have been deleted, however unfortunately there's no way to delete accounts or their contribution history. -- Curps 00:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Then how come people can still leave me comments if my user pages and talk pages are deleted? (69.117.27.68 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

The pages' contents and history got deleted, but there's nothing stopping anyone from re-creating User:Kyla or User talk:Kyla just by editing them. There's nothing stopping anyone from editing and creating User:Asdfsgasdfasdsfa either, even if there's no such user as "Asdfsgasdfasdsfa" and no such page ever existed before. That's just the way the software works. I could put a {{deletedpage}} template on them and then protect them, but that's a bit extreme. Right now there's no content at an of the four pages (user and talk), so it doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. -- Curps 01:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you put a deletedpage template on Kyla and Jessica Liao? (69.117.27.68 04:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

Well, that template's only supposed to be used when someone is persistently recreating a page that got deleted according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (for instance, a hoax or nonsense page). Right now, nobody has recreated either of those two user pages or their talk pages, so it doesn't really apply yet. The template's not really supposed to be used in this situation (talk pages). So maybe we can wait and see. -- Curps 07:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User:DHN-bot

Yes, I have requested for bot status for it. DHN 04:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the ultra-quick reversion of my user page; I only noticed it after you intervened! Since you are such a dedicated vandal neutraliser, I hereby award you the RickK Anti-vandalism Barnstar. Excellent work! Brisvegas 07:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey I just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page so fast.

Theyab 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Re block

Next time you block an anon IP - READ THE INFORMATION ON THE IP TALK PAGE FIRST!!!!!! I am sick of having loads of disgruntled wiki users email me because they know I'll unblock 202.180.83.6 (since it also blocks me). It's for that reason - among others - that that particular page asks for blocks to be limited to one hour and asks that I be informed before any block is made on that IP. PLEASE do that if you ever need to block it again! Grutness...wha? 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...

...but Lucky 6.9 blocked me, although I was sticking to one name and respecting the 3RR. In that case I will have to revert to using throwaway usernames. Ylevisuba 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. The best thing might be to contact User:Linuxbeak, to arrange for him to make an announcement so that you wouldn't be blocked when using a single username. -- Curps 03:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your history of repeated blocks

Is quite troubling, you should consider toning down your blocking and page move habits before some one starts to think you're a bot--Etyheryery 03:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

How dare you!

How dare you help those scammers accuse me of using socks. What the heck is that? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 04:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --Nlu 07:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page too. It's very much appreciated. - Gilgamesh 08:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And mine, thanks. Paul Carpenter 10:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Email (again)

I know I'm being repetitive, since a lot of people already asked, but see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible Admin Phishing:

[...]I send this message to you because I can't send it to Curps who blocked my IP address[...] (emphasis mine)

--cesarb 15:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Email followup

Hi Curps, this is a followup on my earlier comment about setting up an email address. Quite a few people have been asking. Today I read an email on wikien-l from a user who was blocked and couldn't contact you to have the block removed. You can find the email here. Please set up an email address and start taking your share of responsibility for your actions. He also said that the block summary you used was "user...". What does "user..." stand for? If it stands for "username" then what does "username" stand for? silsor 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, seconded. We've been getting similar stuff on helpdesk-l... it's also particularly annoying on #wikipedia-en-vandalism to see "user..." as a reason - surely you can at least spend a little bit of time writing in "user blocked for innappropriate username"? Alphax ^τεχ 09:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking NSMC58577107

Hi Curps, I received an email from User:Ecemaml telling me that he was getting automatically blocked because his (dynamic) IP address was used by a user you blocked, User:NSMC58577107. I've unblocked that user because I wasn't sure how else to prevent Ecemaml from being blocked. Just thought I'd let you know. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

Hi! Can you check out the article Kristin Kreuk? We have a edit war going on and we don't know who's right. (Oh behaVa 14:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you!

Hey, thanks for restoring my userpage and user talk page after vandalism so quickly, that's very much appreciated! Solver 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto!

As above, thanks for restoring my userpage.  :-) Lawyer2b 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Need help on Meta.

Hey, do you have an admin account on meta. I think a vandalbot is creating accounts, I'm blocking them as fast as i can, but there are tons.. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges Thanks.

Hmm. Ok thanks though, and thanks for the links, it will be good info for later when the bcrats asked me why I blocked so many users :) If you decide to do some work on meta though, I would support your RFA. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

4.242.*.* Vandal

Just thought I'd let you know that he's back again at 4.242.192.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --anetode╔╝ 06:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This vandal just might have some sort of personality disorder or other psychological ailment. --anetode╔╝ 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Y CVn

>Y CVn is not upsilon CVn [1]. There is no such star as upsilon Canum
>Venaticorum. -- Curps 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Like this user talk needs some inflating: Of course, thanks. I confused the greek Y and the german Y, which are named alike. Fixed it. MfG --Thuringius 21:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal up for a vote

A new proposal on representation of Norse mythology names is now up for a vote. I'm letting you know because you commented on that page :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Weird Anon?

I came across this guy while on RC patrol- thought this would be of interest to you- diff Do you know this guy? Borisblue 06:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

User Page

Thanks for reverting my page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

165.21.154.111 and .116

You might get some complaints about these, since they're Singapore ISP proxies (and the same guy used .108 just now). A better solution might be to block 165.21.154.96/27 for a short time (a range block which blocks .96 through .127). I've done this just now. -- Curps 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just going to block 165.21.154.96/28 (I haven't seen anything above .111 yet). Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake; forgot about .116; /27 was right. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I hate/hated doing it, but we have had persistent vandalism from this ISP for a few days now. I've been doing 15 min and 1 hour /24 blocks. Yes, I realize this is a lot (255) IP's, and I did think of smaller subnets, but the ranges were so wild. I think we should discuss another solution, if possible. BTW I just did 165.21.154.0/24 for 3 hours. «»Who?¿?^meta 02:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Who, I blocked 165.21.154.96/27 again a few minutes ago, so you may want to unblock and reblock to avoid releasing those 32 IPs too early. Owen× ☎ 02:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I did them for 2 hours instead of 3. I hate blocking them for this long, but this is becoming ridiculous. Last nite after the short blocks expired, they were back at it again. It's a shame we have a few valid users on this ISP. «»Who?¿?^meta 03:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Block bot

Hi there Curps. I was wondering if you would be willing to share any information on your block bot which I read about in the admin noticeboard archives. I'm Tom from the Homestar Runner Wiki and we've been having some trouble with a vandalbot, which I know you are at least aware of. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- TomPreuss 04:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand your reasoning. I'm really only interested in the blocking functionality though. Would it be possible to email me just that portion of the code? If so, just send it to tom@hrwiki.org. Thanks. -- TomPreuss 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

HelpDesk request

Curps, could you please contact Kostas Tzounopoulos, ktzouno AT lfme.chemeng.upatras.gr? He has some questions about his IP number having been blocked by Proxy Blocker. - Andre Engels 07:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It was sent on the helpdesk mailing list (helpdesk-l). The block was an open proxy block for 150.140.191.102; apart from being unblocked it seems the person in question was at least as interested in knowing why his IP was considered an open proxy, since he did not think he had an open proxy, and feared that there might be a trojan or worm at work to open it. - Andre Engels 08:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Please contact me after you have unblocked or take another action, so I can contact this person about it. Thanks in advance.

Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

Hi. I'm sorry my edits broke an external link, I didn't do that on purpose - perhaps you'll believe me, perhaps not. Wow, I'm up to my ears of being discriminated in Wikipedia due to my nick. I had been "BattleTroll" for years on spanish Usenet without any troubles, I'm user BattleTroll at "Enciclopedia Libre" as well as in Spanish Wikipedia. Only here at English Wikipedia I'm always rejected :-( Perhaps I shall use my discussion page to explain why I chose that nickname 10+ years ago (Tolkien and RPG related, by the way). Now to business. Sad you didn't even look at the discussion page as to *why* I made those changes. Please read them. Revert my changes if you please for them being against NPOV. Or (as you did) for breaking an external link. Or for vandalism - but please, don't just do it based on my nick. I'll rspect your decission and won't revert the edits of the anonymous user to mines again, hope you'll do it or at least help the article be less POV. Thank you. TrollDeBatalla

Hi, thanks for answering so fast. Regarding the name: yeah, you're right. I didn't know "Troll" had that negative connotations in English, it lacks them in Spanish. I was surprised to see the article "Internet Troll" appears in Spanish wikipedia, however I'm pretty sure that meaning of the term hasn't catched on yet - I've been "BattleTroll" for years (specially in Spaniard and Mexican sites) without any trouble.

Now, regarding the article: hey, it looks like the personal project of user "205.240.227.15" (who says is "ElJigüe"), who has been asked before to register and has rejected it (see the discussion page). I'm not the only one who thinks the article is extremely biased. You don't want to be personally involved, that's OK. I just ask you to please help me to "freeze" it for a while. For everybody's sake, I'm willing to see this article "frozen" (even if this user's edits are the ones that remain visible) so that community shall take a look at it and decide collectively what to do with it. I don't want to engage in a personal edit war with this unregistered user "ElJigue". On the other hand, would you mind me returning to my edits if I correct the errors I made (the extra "5" at the end and the destroyed reference)? You're right, I must be more careful next time. Yours Battle Olog-hai (I'm thinking about changing my nick to "Olog-hai" or the like to avoid English-speakers over-reacting at seeing my nick)

Wow, I wasn't even asking for this article to be deleted (I only wanted it to be edited to be more NPOV), but well - thanks, I guess... See you later!!!

HEY!

i was just givin an example to the guy and you deleted it, also theres this WoW running around you better get him. i don't remember his username go to al copone it should be there, stop the wow guy, hell vandalise wikipedia if you dont stop him

wheeley his name is wheeley, eh will vandalise soon enough, hes just a WoW, you gotta stip him before he starts

Range block of AOL IP addresses

Please use extreme caution when implementing range blocks. Your range block of 512 IP addresses used by vandals, even for 5 minutes, will prevent thousands of possibly legitimate users from editing Wikipedia. The IP address ranges which you blocked, User:152.163.101.0/24 and User:152.163.100.0/24, are proxy serves used by AOL; sometimes, a different proxy server is used for each request a user makes from an AOL user, meaning that a vandal will use several AOL proxy servers. AOL is prone to vandals, but range-blocking a large portion of all AOL users is futile. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User block

Heya Crups, it looks like my IP has gotten caught up with that "penis" account spammer. (Holy crap, that's good wiki != "omg crups l1k3s teh pen0r") Joehaer 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

""" Your IP address is 66.92.170.15. Please include this address, along with your username, in any queries you make.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Curps.

The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Holy crap, that's good wiki". The reason given for Holy crap, that's good wiki's block is: "user...". """ --Joehaer 02:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm on a speakeasy.net bridged sdsl connection near Washington, so the local POP's bridged links show up as that.

Troll

I've been dealing with that same anon for over six months...but appreciate the rollback on his contribution to my RfA talk page. Thanks!--MONGO 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Dlyons493Bot

Hi, Thanks for the deletion - I thought it was probably aimed at me rather than the Bot but it actually just looks random! Dlyons493 Talk 19:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Again

thanks again for reverted vandalisim from my page

(Theyab 21:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

Sock?

What? Why do you think I'm a sockpuppet of someone? What did I do? Willy O'Brien 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I also reverted vandalism on Dookie does that make me Green Day No does that make me a fan I cant believe just because I was going through Recent Changes and helping out people doesn't make me a sockpuppet I can help out and edit that doesnt make me someone else i cant believe you Willy O'Brien 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Government

I always do but I guess this time I picked the wrong version to revert to. Tnx for fixing it. Garion1000 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've removed some personal attacks from this page. I just thought I should let you know. Guanaco 03:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I put it in Japan because I felt that since it was the official sport of Japan, it had a place there. All of the ones I put it in I felt had a relation. When people search for a katana, doesnt a sport that teaches someone how to use it tye in with it?

Also, it isnt my site, I am a kendoka, and as I was searching for info, I came across this site. It has some information that most kendoka didnt know, and as it has only been up for about 2 weeks, I felt it would be good to link to it. I have no doubt that in a few more weeks this site will have an abundance of information on kendo.

Kendo and Kumdo and Kenjutsu are the same thing, different names, so I added it The sword/katana threads I added it because someone searching for swords may have an interest in finding out how a samurai trained. Japan: Because it is the national sport

wow

Wow, I am VERY sorry for doing that. Know that in now way was I trying to cause trouble. However, if it is ok, I would like to post it in other topics that would be related, I am VERY tired of hearing kendo called

"hitting with sticks"

ok sure, from now on I will link only to things that directly relate to kendo. :)

Thank you for your time, and again, sorry for any trouble I caused

Níðhöggr > Nidhogg?

There is currently a vote underway at Talk:Níðhöggr to move the page to a form without the diacritics and nominative case marker. As always your opinion would be appreciated. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Do you think we should protect it, maybe for 15 minutes or so, just to get rid of this guy? Any thoughts? -Mysekurity 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi there,

I've been here at Wikipedia for close to a month now and I have primarily contributed in the field of counter-vandalism. And I must say, it is editors like you and me that keep the place half-presentable. Besides the point, could you possibly hook me up with some sort of revert button? I tried pasting the godmode-light.js script on my monobook.js page - however, it doesn't seem to work. I tried some sort of "requests for rollback priviliege" page but it was a dead end since I later found that the page was only a proposal. And lastly, I'm not so sure I can fly as being an admin, with under 1000 edits. Any suggestions? Tips? Shortcuts? Thanks plenty. --Master Jay 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I just noticed it in the page history. The Wookieepedian 09:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism

Hi Curps,

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage...I didn't know that it had become sort of a target while I was away! =P

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of User:80.37.155.149

I've created that page because it is my static IP, so if I sometime forget to check if I'm logged in (happened to me more than one time), users will see that it's me. —Claunia 19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking RoySmith-1

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, you might want to read User_talk:RoySmith#Please_unblock_me.21 --RoySmith 01:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize I could unblock myself. Neat. --RoySmith 01:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

BestBuy25

I prefer to have my home page redirect to Best Buy, thank you. 08:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your harsh vandalism warning

Hi. Regarding your vandalism warning at User talk:68.108.192.161 - Please consider not placing such an extreme warning as {{bv}} when the user has only a single non-productive edit and only three edits in total. Consider starting with {{test}} to give new users the benefit of the doubt that perhaps there were just experimenting. From there move to {{test2}} and {{test3}} before moving to {{bv}} or {{test4}}. Assume good faith and only become more harsh in your warnings if there is historical evidence of vandalism prior to the incident you are responding to. Also consider signing your comments so that a user can contact you to ask how to make productive edits. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I must have forgotten to mention it, but thanks for reverting my user page. I appreciate it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise - thanks for being so speedy on reverting my user page, too. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And mine as well, although I can't imagine why they thought that "small pianist" would be such a devastating insult. Joyous | Talk 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent moves and diacritics

I'm sorry I keep coming to you with my problems but could you look into the following?

Five days ago I posted a question on Talk:Emiliana Torrini on whether anyone would object to using the i acute in her name. The only person who commented strongly supported that. Since no objection surfaced I moved the page earlier today. User:CDThieme - who has never edited that article or shown any interest in it - has now moved it back and locked the redirect. It seems clear to me that he came to the page through my contribution log.

This is the same thing as happened on Níðhöggr where User:Jonathunder - having never edited the article or shown interest in it - forced a confrontation. The debate has now run the required five days and I can only hope that someone closes it soon.

Another thing that's bothering me are those contribution logs: [8] [9] [10]

Those three users have 25 edits between them in the last month and almost all of them are related to requested moves where they vote as a block in favor of ASCII versions. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but it seems to me that those users are exerting an influence on votes disproportional to their contributions to the encyclopedia.

I'm at a loss here. Do you have any advice? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanx...Lawton

Thanks for cleaning up the Lawton, Oklahoma article. The vandal, I am sorry to say, appears to be a pretty typical Lawtonian. --Steve (Lawton High '64) Tex 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Blackpool

Did you intend to make the whole of this edit? Susvolans ⇔ 16:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It seems I somehow inadvertently edited the version prior to User:Rugxulo's edits. I've restored them now. -- Curps 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my userpage! Cheers, Jacoplane 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:69.117.6.28, User:DW, User:TMC et al.

What is the story there? None of those presumably banned users appear as blocked. Owen× ☎ 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I find this weird, too - so far, the only DW-related user I have found to be blocked is Joe Canuck - are there any others? --69.117.6.28 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, these usernames don't really ring a bell. Was there an ArbCom case? -- Curps 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've told OwenX to tell Jimbo Wales (I'm aware that they occurred long before you started contributing here, and that Jimbo Wales handled it), but I'm not sure whether he's done so or not. --69.117.6.28 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you fixing my user page after it was vandalized. It seems that user has a history of vandalizing pages. Just out of curiosity how did you know he was editing my page, have you been tracking him. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I apologize for any dumb questions in advance. Malix 23:49 EST, December 6, 2005

Special:Recentchanges -- Curps 04:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I will have to remember that, thanks -- Malix 23:55 EST, December 6, 2005

Vandels

Curps, thnx so much for the revert. My first vandel, I feel so blessed.  :) Joe I 05:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Looking over all your previous notes, it looks like you're quite the effects user-page-vandalism-reverter. Thanks for your help with mine, and keep up the great work! – ClockworkSoul 06:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Emilíana Torrini

I'm not going to fight over this, it's not important enough. But it does grate on me a bit that User:CDThieme again moved the page to his preferred location and again deliberately damaged the redirect. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This looks like revenge for Haukur doing the same thing to Nidhogg. Both of them need to grow up. Susvolans ⇔ 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually though , that seems to have been Wiglaf rather than Haukur. -- Curps 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Servebot 1

Hi... User:203.131.157.85 posted on my talk page, apparently confused, saying "im now a registered user in this web but i have noticed that i am always blocked by someone by the user named curps" (see diff). He manually signed it as User:Servebot 1. According to the logs: "Curps blocked User:Servebot 1 with an expiry time of indefinite (please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page)". Well, apparently you've unblocked him now, but what was the block for? I just want to make sure things are all cleared up for him. Coffee 13:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! I can't believe I didn't see it earlier... --ApolloBoy 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

User: RSPW Coaster

I noticed you have reverted vandalism on my user page from this user. Please take note of his numerous attacks on my talk page, as well as several articles that I have contributed to. This user is actually the latest in a long line of "DinkSocks" (as the template for marking his many accounts is named) that are created merely to cause trouble on my user/talk pages and entries I've contrinuted to. Your attention regarding this latest nuisance would be greatly appreciated. Chadbryant 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might wish to consider filing a Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. This would result in both sides documenting their complaints against the other (be careful not to undertake any action that could get yourself sanctioned though). -- Curps 05:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps he might want to consider not being such a whiny douchebag. Chadbryant is repeatedly removing remarks placed there by Wikipedia administrators regarding his behavior towards the 3RR rule. Also, he has had a link on his talk page (near the top of the page) which could be considered a deragatory or inflammatory site. Oh hell, who am I a kidding? It IS a deragatory and inflammatory site. The only reason he links to it is because of his obsessive and spiteful nature. At the very least, the link's gotta go, under the "personal attack" rules set down by Wikipedia. -- RSPW Poster 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, somebody needs to take somebody to RfC or RfArb. I'm not sure who's right, but I see ChadBryant posting under his own account but an army of accounts being created on the other side, all making pretty much the same set of edits and reverts. You're really insisting that "AnaleaseBryant" isn't intended as a mocking sockpuppet/impostor of ChadBryant? [11] I also see a number of other admins reverting your edits. If you have some legitimate complaints against ChadBryant, stick to one username for credibility and file an RfC against him. -- Curps 03:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid physical characteristics

Hi Curps, I've just created a page with the cumbersome title Standard asteroid physical characteristics linked to from Template:Minor Planet, which tries to be a reference explaining where physical data comes from for run-of-the-mill generic asteroids. This issue has been bugging me for ages. I've put up what I have been able to surmise, but I'm hoping to bait those (like You) who have been active among the asteroids, and probably know more about this. Deuar 21:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting the typo on my userpage. As you probably know my French isn't that good. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Regardless of how you feel about the posters involved with the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry, you are clearly replacing the text within the article with an edit that has already been discussed on the talk page for the entry. The consensus from several Wikipedia administrators, including Mel Etitis, was that certain information should not be put into the article, and indeed should be left out of it entirely. If you must feel the need to revert, then revert to a stage wherein that information does not exist inside the edit.

Read the talk page for the entry if you are confused about what I am posting about. Kermit the Gorf 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Curps, Thanks for reverting my user page, 128.253.117.68 seems to have it in for me. I think that is the 3rd time he's messed with my user page. Again Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should say 128.253.117.63, 128.253.117.71, and 128.253.117.68 :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine too. Mushroom 05:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting mine as well.--Shanel 05:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Stoke-on-Turn - Thanks for getting rid of all that music hall nonsense (music hall was never folk lore), the first was just about acceptable (and authentic) but the other two showed up the first for the tat that it is. Sincerely, NoelWalley 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could u block

Hi could you block Bubbagold89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks Lincher 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My userpage lists some of the vandals that I saw, if you want to take a look and block some. Lincher 19:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your comment on my user page. Thanks! Ian13 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have updated it - since I found a cure, thanks for pointing it out to me! Ian13 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User Chadbryant & your behavior as such

I think that you need to stop making such snap judgements and doing nothing but immediately reverting my edits. Let me see if I can explain to you my motivations here, at least a little bit of them. When Chadbryant places his "DinkSock" sockpuppet accusation onto a User account, he does so with no rhyme or reason. He is not a Wikiadmin, and thus cannot sense or see IP numbers or DNS registrations; in no way can he tell who is coming from where, unless that person is not logged into an account, and then of course the IP number is available for viewing. He has no authority to post a User account as a sockpuppet -- he has not been given permission by any Wikipedi admin (Mel Etitis included) to act in loco sockpuppetis or whatever for them, and he simply does not have the authority or user ability to make such a judgement while in the capacity of a Wikipedia user.

This was pointed out to him by Wikiuser TruthCrusader when he edited Wikiuser RSPW Poster; Chad of course predictably ignored the remarks and reverted the entry back into "sockpuppet form." So, let me be clear here: Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always been of the assumption that only a Wikiadmin could place a sockpuppet accusation onto an account. Indeed, when Wikiuser StephenSignorelli reverted the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article back into a form that had been declared of negative quality from no more than three different Wikiadmins, this was shown to me by one of the admins themselves. As a result of the handle -- as well as the history, edit, and contribution list from this person -- I placed a "suspected sockpuppet of Chadbryant" tag onto the account. The admin promptly came along and deleted the remarks. Why? Because apparantly that was what they were supposed to do. I was informed that there was no evidence to this in the contrary; yet despite all of this, a Salt Lake City IP (the physical location of Mr. Chadbryant) is going around at the moment vandalising user articles and user talk, and could I still put a sockpuppet accusation in? No, I could not.

I hope I've been clear here. Yes, Chadbryant and I have a history of negative feelings towards each other (well, he's actually a homosexual sociopath who has unrequited love towards me, but that's another story altogether), but he does not have authority in any capacity to declare sockpuppets, yet admins like you will revert them back to the accusation IMMEDIATELY upon seeing it changed! Why is that? What makes it fair that Chad, with no position or authority of his own, can simply romp along placing sockpuppet accusations willy-nilly, yet it's not considered "abuse" (or, to use his favorite word on Wikipeia, "vandalism")? What makes it fair that when one attempts to remove these petty, silly, unsubstantiated edits of his, that these are not allowed to stand? Do I really need to declare arbitration simply because I'm standing up for the rights of these User accounts, regardless of who may or may not be behind them? Is this one of those "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" scenarios, or am I wasting my time here?

Now...as for his user talk page. I go after that one with repeated reverts because Chadbryant is constantly removing new remarks on there placed there by Wikipedia admins. See his two blocks for the 3RR rule as a good example. I also placed comments on there remarking on how he should leave User pages alone and stop adding in the nonsensical information to the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article that he had already been told months back to leave out. He, of course, being the lovely person that he is, immediately deletes these remarks. So tell me -- what's wrong with this picture? How much leeway does Wikipedia give in one's own talk page, especially when it comes to on-topic, verifiable, and substantiated remarks from admins and users alike/

As for everything else? Well, I think a check of his special contributions page would pretty much explain away a lot of that. Chad is repeatedly reverting articles and claiming "vandalism" to justify his behavior -- yet very, VERY few cases of vandalism (if any at all) have existed for him to be justified. He uses "vandalism" in such an abiguous sense that not even Albert Einstein himself could figure out all the necessary explanations for their usage. Clearly he has -- and continues to -- exploit/exploited the Wikipedia definition and template of "vandalism" for his own selfish and petty wants and gains. I note the Stannie Get Your Gun entry and the whole sad, pathetic, stupid revert war over the Trivia entry as a good example of this. The only reason Chad would revert was because the original addition was placed there by a poster that he hated.

You really need to stop listening to Chad and helping him to paint himself as the victim. I'm more than willing to reach an agreement here -- but your behavior simply doesn't help. You immediately jump in and block me as a sockpuppet, or as a vandal, or some other stupid bullshit like that without giving me half the opportunity you give him. This is either biasedness on your part or simply a stupid move, because as a Wikipedia administrator (or one who appears to think himself as one) you should attempt to remain as neutral as possible. It's moves like yours which have Wikipedia as such a joke among Internet users. Either allow me to continue, chat with me on the issue, or don't do anything at all, but you simply can't have it both ways. Chad is not the victim here -- indeed, in the majority of these cases, he is the aggressor. Which is something I would both hope and expect you in a position that you have placed yourself into to understand. Sure, he and I hate each other, but for Chad it goes way beyond hate. He has a history of doing whatever it takes to suit his own purposes and beliefs (see the KTVX entry as a good example) and when trouble starts he is the one who tries to make himself the victim. Chad is no different than those birds who will try to feign injury to lead predators away from the scent of their young, except those birds at least do it for all the right reasons.

Do whatever you will, but as long as you continue to keep your eyes half-closed like this, we really aren't going to get anywhere in this matter. I hope you understand. I may hate the guy, but I can't allow his bullshit to stink up all of Wikipedia. Zippity Doo Dah 20:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I have just returned to find my User page vandalised by Chadbryant with his insipid sockpuppet accusation. Do you see what I mean, now? Who or what told him that he could put that there besides himself? How am I supposed to calm down -- as you suggest -- with that idiot running around doing stupid crap like that? If you are going to chastize me for my behavior and alleged sockpuppetry, you should also make sure that Chadbryant knows this cannot continue. Really, what else am I supposed to do? I remove the sockpuppet accusation, he puts it back in. Guy's a real dick, dude. Zippity Doo Dah 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, your pal TenOfAllTrades has banned the Zippity Doo Dah account. So, I'd love to discuss this further with you, but it'd just be from yet another sockpuppet forced out of creation as a result of someone like him having banned the other accounts without waiting for an explanation. I mean, you can go ahead and respond on here if you want, and I'll be glad to reply through a sockpuppet, but it seems like nothing is going to be done until a) arbitration is done or b) your fellow Wikipedi administrators stop acting like a bunch of dicks. TwelveOfAllTrades 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked User:Zippity Doo Dah, User:ElevenOfAllTrades, and User:TwelveOfAllTrades indefinitely as sockpuppet accounts being used to evade blocks. (Not to mention various gross violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:DICK, etc.) If you think one of them needs to be unblocked for discussion purposes, do so at your discretion. (Please keep an eye on any such account.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So I see you blocked my "Zing Zing" account. Does this mean you aren't interested in discussing the subject of Chadbryant? I don't blame you -- he is, after all, a fat, bloated, ignorant, homosexual sociopath with numerous mental and emotional problems -- however, you seemed to want to open a dialogue based on the interactions between he and I. Does the blocking of Zing Zing mean you have changed your mind? Deathen Taxes 18:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have officially requested arbitration against Chadbryant. Please see WP:RFAR for the relevant discussion. Deathen Taxes 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Me again. I read the comments you left on my talk page; they were both inciteful and relevant. Thank you for your input regarding this matter. One problem I have in reporting Chad's violation of policies is that it's difficult to link to Wikipedia pages internally without screwing up the link; for example, I have trouble linking to Special Contributions pages. That sort of thing. Another problem is I am quite sure that his repeated reverts with the excuse of "vandalism" is indeed a violation of Wikipedia policy (or at the very least a manipulation of it) given his extensive use of it for the reason of his revertings; however, I am still not completely sure how to put it into words and leave it in as an explanation that would not necessarily be airtight, but at least be understandable and able to be read and perused by Wikipedia administrators with little or no trouble.

Essentially, the problem(s) is/are twofold: One, I'm sick and tired of his repeated sockpuppet template additions. Whether or not the user account(s) is/are a/sockpuppet(s) does not matter. The issue in question here is his almost gleeful additions to User accounts regarding this matter. He seems to jump the gun; he in no way is an administrator and thus cannot see IPs. He cannot tell "who is who," if you will, and yet he seems to take it upon himself to armchair his way into the Wikipedia adminstrator by making these vandalistic behaviors at his whim. For one thing, he does not use any warning templates OF ANY KIND on talk pages -- he jumps right to the user page and places the "DinkSock" template on the page. When this is removed, he edits it, reverts it, and gives the excuse of "vandalism." And yes, I know he's misused "vandalism" but given how many times he's done this, I believe I can successfully use it in describing his behavior.

The other problem is I'm tired of his blatant violation (or at least manipulation) of the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism." This is not some abiguous term that Homeland Security is using. This is the Wikipedia definition that Chad is repeatedly advancing to suit his own needs; it seems as if he is using not the Wikipedia interpretation of it, but his own. It is one thing if an article is blatantly vandalised where even a half-blind Wikipedia administrator who speaks English as a second language can see that there's vandalism. But it's entirely another issue when there is no vandalism to begin with. See Stannie Get Your Gun for an example of this (he was blocked for 24 hours because of that one). In point of fact, in VERY FEW occassions has Chad even given reason for stating "vandalism." In other words, he doesn't revert and list "This was vandalism because blah blah blah." Not on the talk page or in the Edit summary either. He simply reverts (r/v) and puts "vandalism". Let's face it, that's just stupid. If you and I met in a bar and I said that I hated you and walked away, without giving you any reason that might let you know why, wouldn't you find yourself a bit confused and frustrated? Such is the result of Chadbryant's rather flimsy use of the "vandalism" definition on Wikipedia. I hope this clears things up a bit more. See you on the arbitration side, I guess! Deathen Taxes 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What Do Think?

I saw user "homograph" today. What do you think? WP:U vio?(some kind of attack on homosexuals or something). I doubt it, but i'm not sure, so I'll leave it to you. karmafist 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, homo- can be used in many legitimate contexts. -- Curps 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am "homograph." I did not mean to confuse anyone. The term is used in Language Arts to describe a word that is spelled the same and has different meanings (I am an elementary school teacher). It merely descibes my first name which is a homograph. If is it offensive, I will gladly change it.

I'd say it's not a problem. If you think it necessary you could put the above explanation on your user page. -- Curps 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.

Ummm....?

Curps why did you block Arbitrarily Blocked? That was a sockpuppet of Deathen Taxes created as a result of Rhobite blockiing Deathen Taxes. Since Deathen Taxes has an ongoing arbitration dispute, which was signed under that account, being blocked would make it rather difficult to continue within that arbitration.

You know the most ironic part? You blocked Arbitrarily Blocked as I was writing to your talk page under his account.

So, to recap:

• 1. Deathen Taxes requests arbitration
• 2. Rhobite blocks Deathen Taxes
• 3. Arbitrarily Blocked created to continue arbitration until such time as Rhobite takes his medication
• 4. Årbitrarily Blocked posts to your talk page explaining the reason for the account and the subsequent handle
• 5. You block Arbitrarily Blocked as the talk is being posted
• 6. The Mayans turn out to be right and the world ends in 2012 with this shit still going on.

So...um...is Deathen Taxes still blocked, or has Rhobite been put on the naughty stool finally? What the hell is going on here, Curps? Answer on here or on the twenty or so other talk pages, but please give me a response. Oh Good Grief 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the user page rvv. And I shall take this opportunity to thank you for all your anti-vandalism work. Thank you! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your warnings...

Please sign your warnings. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

Curps, you blocked my IP for greeting new users (Something that SCZenz, Musical Linguist, and HappyCamper all said I was welcome to do. I left a few messages on both the IP page and my regular talk page...both of which you didn't reply to although I happen to know that you were online. From there I tried to get your attention by trailing banners of text from my edits by using the user summary, which probably wasn't the best approach for it got my talk page blocked. I eventually called my IP provider and they gave me a new IP...and while it is against wiki policy to do such things I hope it will be forgiven. Anyway, I would like it if you didn't block me again, and leave me alone in the future. Thank you, Chooserr

We had a couple of disruptive users/vandals just minutes before you that were rapidly adding a flurry of welcome messages to new user pages and were using that to disguise some bad edits (bogus "you've been blocked messages" etc). See Polysciwantacracker (talk · contribs) and You got that right mister (talk · contribs). I saw an anon IP doing the same thing, and what's more it was signing its edits with your username, and so I believed it was part of the same trend. You also posted an entirely bogus block message to User:The Devil Made Me do IT who is now demanding an explanation from you. Sorry if you were blocked in error, but perhaps you could have done those edits under your username if you chose to sign them with your username. By the way, we're getting many thousands of new users every day, far too many to send welcome messages to them all, and many of which never make any contributions at all... so I'm not sure if it serves much purpose to do large numbers of welcome messages to users registered minutes earlier who haven't made their first edit yet. -- Curps 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please unblock Chooserr/71.129.72.3 as there does not seem to have been anything wrong with what was being posted, and a great deal wrong with admin behavior in reacting to it. --24.221.8.253 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(copy of what I just posted to User_talk:Chooserr#Block): Perhaps, Curps, you could stop making irrational decisions. It never hurts to welcome people. It hurts the community a lot to punish people who are doing no wrong, then blame them for doing what they think is right to cover up your mistake. --24.221.8.253 06:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. The block was entirely reasonable. -- Curps 07:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

False. It was unreasoned and therefore unreasonable. You sprayed your fire and hit innocent people. Get over yourself and go apologize for real. --24.221.8.253 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issues or providing any counter-arguments. And note 71.129.72.3's very disruptive post-block behavior. -- Curps 07:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"not addressing the issues"? I've done nothing but, and you've run around in circles avoiding your culpability. And I've already told you that your demonization of Chooserr's response to your mistreatment of him is heinous and venal. But thanks for keeping it up. The RFC will love that. Good night. Argue with yourself. You might just win at that. --24.221.8.253 08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion (and more details) are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again. -- Curps 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Email

Become answerable via email for your blocks or have a future RFC. To me your behaviour is unacceptable. silsor 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this is completely unrelated to the Chooserr situation. The timing is a coincidence. silsor 08:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User:71.129.72.3

See User talk:71.129.72.3 for an explanation of why the block was done. I've unblocked now, but his post-block behavior isn't really a good sign though. -- Curps 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you handled that civily and explained it well. It seems a shame, because I'm pretty sure I've seen him make good edits (though I can't exactly remember if this is true). What really gets me is he tried to post to my talk page on his new ip as somebody else....it just seems kinda sneaky. Should I block that one? Thanks for explaining it now, by the way... -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Buncha tin-star renta-cops rationalizing your shoot-first attitudes and blaming your victims for screaming in pain. Curps' "explanation" was a whitewash. What Chooserr deserved was a grovelling apology, not a haughty backhanded dismissal. I'm behind Silsor. Someone should be showing cause why they should not be stripped of sysop status over this. This is seriously not a "good sign". --24.221.8.253 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The block was entirely reasonable. Take it to WP:AN/I if you have some opinion to express. -- Curps 07:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion (and more details) are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again. -- Curps 07:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Meatpuppet alerts

Why did you remove the meatpuppet alerts? These were users who visited/joined specifically to vote on particular AFD discussions, which is meatpuppetry. Firebug 09:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this meaning of "meatpuppet" is standard or understood by most Wikipedia users (it didn't ring a bell for me). In any case, the place to put such a notice would probably be within the AfD discussions themselves, since it's unlikely that the closing admin will take the trouble to visit the user page of each voting user, although they might check the length of their contribution history. Maybe it would be helpful to get more community feedback on the meatpuppet template before applying it widely, since you've only created it just now and there hasn't been time to get reactions. -- Curps 09:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted it on Talk:Sockpuppet and on VP policy. Firebug 18:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well OK then, thanks for clarifying. -- Curps 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

request

Could your bot fix the unicode at List of Greek words with English derivatives? Thanks :) +MATIA ☎ 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very quick response! :) It seems that it doesn't change some polytonic greek chars, like Template:Polytonic. And I'm more curious about the way it works - is it Perl, python, something else? Is there a page where I can read more about your bot apart from it's User page? +MATIA ☎ 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this revert?

What's the deal with [this revert], which happened less than I minute after I made a change adding the POV-check template to the article? 65.87.249.137 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that mainstream opinion concurs in considering them a Christian denomination. Sure, there are some who consider various denominations such as Mormons to not be a Christian denomination, and you can even find some Protestants who consider the Catholic Church to not be a Christian church. However, mainstream opinion is quite broadly accepting of most denominations, and our articles should neutrally reflect that, rather than personal theological beliefs of any particular contributor. POV notices should be justified in the talk page, and you haven't done so. -- Curps 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch

nice user page :) it says you blocked this account. is that the only sock puppet of Daniel Brandt?? 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Istanbul

would you be able to move the page back to İstanbul where it was originally at until it was moved on the 9th? thanks. sorry about that. --Khoikhoi 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Essex

Hi does this look like a impostor on mighty Jimbo to you? I dunno but he is the one who created Jimbo Essex's views on wikipedia which you just deleted thankfully. Might be worth checking out :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also User:Jimbo Essex/Example of Patent Nonsense. A brand new account created solely for pranks, with the edit summary comment "testing speed of response to blatent vandalism". I blocked. -- Curps 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment/Question

Dear Curps,

I would like to be serious here for a moment, and ask you why you have to be so jumpy with the trigger finger and block me just because the name is a bit unusual? I've had a couple of them in the past (I know-sockpuppet admission) that I was going to make some serious contributions with, but I was blocked before I could make a single edit. I don't wish to tell you which ones they were, but I assure you they didn't have swearing in them and they didn't insult you. So I don't see the problem here. Thanks for hearing me out and please get back to me.Boring Guy With Boring Username 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to answer the question of why a specific username was blocked if you don't mention which username it was (or usernames, since you mention there's more than one). -- Curps 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question

Hi - I recently applied an indefinite block on User:Edwin HJ for userpage vandalism and attacks on User:Quadell. I am new at this and would appreciate it if you would review the situation and let me know/correct any errors in my action. Thanks, Vsmith 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. - Akamad 09:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

user page "vandalism" at User:Rebelguys2

Hey, you just recently reverted my changes to User:Rebelguys2. I would encourage you to look at the content of the edit and just know that Rebelguys2 and I are close friends. I am not going to re-revert the edit, and I know you were just being cautious, as we should be with user page by users other than the owner. I was just fleshing out his joke a little more, that's all. Thanks! -Scm83x 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the revert, I think! ;) -Rebelguys2 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Imposter

Thanks for catching my double! I had to look twice, and then again when I looked at my watchlist...very strange! I wonder what caused someone to start something like that...odd. Rx StrangeLove 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism watch

Good morning, Curps. You recently added {{test1}} to user:156.63.253.3's Talk page. Given the persistent and recurring history of vandalism from this particular IP, I think you were giving this vandal the benefit of doubt which he/she no longer deserves. The vandalism began again almost as soon as the last block ended. The pattern of edits made by this particular vandal does not appear to be the kinds of tests coming from a dynamic IP. This appears to me to be one person who is just refusing to learn. I hope to be proven wrong and would ask you to join the vandalism watch on this IP. I've added a table at the top of the user's Talk page to record the results of the reviews of contribution history. Any observations you have would be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing this out, I'll watch this IP more closely from now on. -- Curps 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

About "Louisville, Whore"

I worked hard on that joke page in reaction to the Simpsons episode. I don't like what you did, it was undignified, and I expect an apology. Deleting my work if it's on userspace-not acceptable. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored it. The only reason I went and deleted it was because I couldn't remember the right page to nominate non-article-space pages for deletion (not AfD). That was cutting a few corners, sorry about that, it shouldn't have been done that way. I still don't think it fits, as per the reasons given (WP:NOT webspace), but I'll leave it alone. -- Curps 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

thanx and it's OK CoolKatt number 99999 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I just wanted to say, wonderful job catching the offensive usernames today around the time I'm posting this. I was welcoming people and noticed how you did a great job at catching them. Just wanted to let you know. Bravo!--ViolinGirl^♪ 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Go see what that pooop vandal has done at Wikispecies!

United States still missing

Thank you for reverting all of that pagemove vandalism. During this restoration, the article United States appears to have been deleted. Could you please restore it? Thanks. NatusRoma 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Curps, I've restored the talk page, but it keeps giving me errors when I try and restore the article. What should we do? -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about raising a ruckus

I raised a bit if a ruckus just now about the United States article. Hope it doesn't cause any further problems, but with such a notable article, I felt it was wiser to shoot first and ask questions later. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why the restore lags so long, or even who deleted it. Database glitch? -- Curps 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for blanking vandalism on my talk page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

checkuser and possible followup

Note recent charming pagemove vandalism twice in quick succession:

• BillRoller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In one of his earlier edits, BillRoller mentions he is posting to Wikipedia from work: [12]

Can you do a checkuser to see if these two users are the same person (or same workplace), and possibly undertake followup as you see fit. -- Curps 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly add:

• Maricon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

who may the the same or just a follow-on copycat. -- Curps 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these users are the same person. Mustanglover used two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities, which in my experience means that they're using compromised hosting servers. I have blocked both addresses, 72.22.69.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brithackemack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The other two users are clearly distinct both from Mustanglover and from each other. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Another detail

Sorry to bug you again, but I noticed:

• Mustanglover69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 02:42, 14 December 2005 [13]
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 02:38, 14 December 2005 [14]

Mustanglover69 was blocked almost immediately as a vandal, while Mustanglover was a sleeper that waited until it could do pagemove vandalism.

Today we had:

• WillemJokerr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 01:12, 16 December 2005 [15]
• WillemJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 01:06, 16 December 2005 [16]

WillemJokerr was blocked almost immediately as a George W. Bush anti-Jimbo vandal, WillemJoker hasn't done anything yet, as I write this.

A similar situation? Accounts created minutes apart, the second account is an immediate vandal, while the first account could be a sleeper, or it could be an innocent user whose name the vandal imitated, perhaps with an aim to get us to start preemptively blocking innocent users.

So does checkuser provide any enlightenment here? How about Mustanglover/Mustanglover69, now known to both be vandals, undoubtedly related, but does checkuser tell us this? -- Curps 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MustangLover69 (who shows no edits, although I suppose they may have been deleted; there is currently no way for me to get IP information on edits which have been deleted), was using an SBC PPPoX pool address (68.122.119.83), which basically means we know nothing about him. I suspect that they're the same person, and that the SBC PPPoX pool address is the address of a compromised machine as well, but it's on dialup or some other sort of connection that will move from time to time so we can't block it the way we can block the members of their botnet that are on static IPs.

WillemJokerr is also using a SBC PPPoX pool address (68.124.190.85). I think both of these are in the same general geographic area, so they're likely the same endpoint. This IP is also responsible for Jswannar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I have now blocked) and This will help us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has already been blocked). We're obviously going to have to keep an eye on these SBC PPPoX pool blocks for a while.

WillemJoker was created from 144.132.247.110, which belongs to Telstra. There is one other edit from this IP, made anonymously, which appears to be legitimate. At this point I don't know if there's a connection. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Uninvestigated allegations of spoofing

You blocked my username without making any effort to discover if I might have a reason for registering a similar-appearing user name to continue editing an article I had previously contributed to. I registered the similar appearing name for consistency sake after I failed to recall my password for the original user name. Your unfounded allegation and uninquisitive tone of hostility does not seem consistent with a genuine search for encyclopedic information, but does convey a sense of impatience, suspicion and lack of cooperation.

You would do well to observe in good faith the consistent tone and narrow interest of the two visually similar user names, to observe the constructive articulate nature of each user name's contribution, to note the lack of destructive edits by either user name, to consider difficulties encountered by harried volunteer contributors to an opensource project then to post an inquiry on the user's talk pages and wait an appropriate time before making dark allegations that a contributor is an impostor or is spoofing.

Now posting as Riebold, I have also posted as Rybold and as RyboId. I expect you can avoid reinforcing your error by ceasing any hostility or allegation toward me now using a third username, and I request that you reverse your capricious indefinate block so I can avoid stirring further confusion by using yet another handle. Riebold 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WBOW

Hey, could you slap a WBOW template on User:Salmonizatios? I'm not an admin, so I don't think I should. Thanks, Melchoir 04:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delayed thank you

You probably do so many such good deeds one is nothing but I just noticed you reverted some vandalism of my user page a month ago. Thanks muchly. Jellypuzzle 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CLW/User:CLVV

Hi Curps! Thanks for acting so quickly and efficiently with regard to the above accounts! It was in fact me who set up CLVV to stop anyone else from setting up an account to impersonate me - I'd seen it happen with other users, and this was the only possible combination of characters that I could think of that anyone could use. But it's reassuring to see that even if it had been an imposter setting up that account they would have been immediatlely blocked before they could do any harm. I hope this didn't cause you too much unnecessary work and hassle. Thanks again. CLW 13:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

??

Is User:XXxWiLlYwHeElSxXx the same as the other "on wheels" users you blocked just a few minutes ago?--ViolinGirl^♪ 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that one. Same person or copycat, it doesn't really matter. -- Curps 18:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for cleaning up the vandalism to my user page. Much appreciated. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox 2 edit-warring

User:Locke Cole also reverted a bunch of albums to Template:Albuminfobox 2. Only the ones that User:Monicasdude hand-reverted from User:BGC's spree though, not the ones you rollbacked. I'm not confident enough to edit-war with that user over it. Opinion? Jkelly 02:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't have an opinion, I have no involvement in album article content. I only acted to level the playing field by undoing what BGC appeared to have done improperly (based on his last comment on your talk page). Hopefully things can be sorted out in the future without such disruption. -- Curps 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong anyway. User:Locke Cole's editing was only to put in Album infobox 2, and did not revert all the way back through months. My mistake, and while I don't agree with the edit, it isn't the same kind of disruption. Jkelly 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mcfly85 sockpuppets

I noticed you going through and blocking some sock puppets of User:Mcfly85 like User:Barkman34 and User:Capnoh - with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used abusively). Well, hate to say that you missed some:

• User:4benson3
• User:Ebrockline
• User:Jimcrocela
• User:Pwner
• User:Tobiasafi

I think thats all of them, thanks for helping. SWD316 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

4benson3: I did block this one

Ebrockline: I did block this one

Jimcrocela: No such user, I blocked Jimcroce1a

Pwner: Not listed by Fred Bauder (but I have now blocked anyway as per username policy ("pwn") and blanking vandalism of your userpage and the reasonable likelihood that it is indeed a sockpuppet in conjunction with the other things)

Tobiasafi: No such user, I blocked Tobiasfi

-- Curps 06:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the mix-ups! And if I know the IP addresses of a sockpuppeteer, do those count as sockpuppets? SWD316 15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

A big WikiThanks for all the work you've been doing reverting the album templates recently! - Wezzo 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please let us be truly fair

I never cut and paste except to restore text that people are deleting for no good reason. Whatever I post is true and carefully documented. Please, we need to have a fair picture, so please stop deleting important truths which are backed by references that anyone can check. Let us please have a balanced view. I Speak Only Truth 17:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Move vandal block bot

Can you modify your bot to email me when it blocks someone for page move vandalism? I'm finding that virtually all of these incidents are coming out of compromised web hosts, and a checkuser often identifies at least one additional sleeper account. Prompt investigation and decisive action after such blocks may help to reduce our exposure. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction (history)

Please don't use rollback to revert non-vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly are you messing with that page? When the database glitch is fixed, that will be the live Wikipedia:Introduction page once again. Your edit is precisely the kind that would be reverted under normal circumstances. -- Curps 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it should not be rolled back as vandalism, as it is not. It should probably not be reverted either, as there is nothing wrong with profanity. --SPUI (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you put profanity in sandbox-like locations where other users will see it, it's rollbackable and no manual edit or edit summary or other justification is needed. -- Curps 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:My another account

14 December 2005 Curps blocked "User:My another account" with an expiry time of indefinite (please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page)

Which page is this page? And what kind of verification is necessary?

It's not like the name I chose is inflammatory or offending or somesuch. --194.226.235.251 13:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked it. "This page" is the page you get when a blocked account tries to edit a page, it has various information on it. -- Curps 20:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention guidelines

Hi Curps!

I'm interested in updating our naming convention guidelines to more clearly reflect the current opinions of Wikipedians and the present reality of article locations. I think we've been doing some good work on the use English guideline lately and that your additions there have been helpful. I'm wondering whether specifying the result of that poll we had with so much precision is the thing to do - especially since the vote count includes an anonymous user and at least one sockpuppet (User:No Account).

Another guideline which often comes up on naming disputes is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which I think needs updating. Apart from the minor improvements we've been working on I think that it needs to specify more clearly that it does not cover the case of diacritics use. It would also be nice to have more examples of where Wikipedians have decided that other considerations than "common use" are more important - fixed-wing aircraft for example.

Currently not many people are paying attention to that guideline and I think it would help to have more. If you can spare a moment your participation would be appreciated. - Haukur 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for your bot

Hi. Would you please be able to run your bot through W.H. Dall? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

your block summaries

I know that this has been mentioned before, but could you please be more descriptive in some of your block summaries? I noticed that you're still using "user..." in your summaries, and those can be confusing, especially to new users. A summary like "inappropriate username" or "username implies vandal account" would be fine. --Ixfd64 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.199. (User:Mike Nobody),

My IP address is 205.188.116.199. Please include this address, along with your username (User:Mike Nobody), in any queries you make. My ISP is AOL and was in the middle of something. I was mistakenly blocked with "IMaRocketMan". Please unblock.

• yeah, what he said, it looks like 90% of AOL's servers are currently serving out 24 hour autoblocks, it's getting very annoying--152.163.101.11 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Do you know if there are anyway to stop them. I'm severly getting infected by the autoblocks, most of them are AOL IPs in which I use. #70913 Is one of them that can't let me edit some pages and need it unblocked. And do you know how to avoid them? Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I get one every three seconds, it's almost unbearable--152.163.101.11 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

When a registered username is blocked by an admin, that admin has no way of knowing whether that user was on AOL or not. IP address information on registered users simply isn't provided to us, for privacy reasons. Admins also have no way of turning off autoblocking: when a registered username is blocked, autoblocks always happen (and vandals can probably figure out how to use this to do a denial-of-service attack on AOL users). Also, there's no way to give legitimate registered users immunity from being autoblocked.

There's not much I can say, except complain to the developers. The Mediawiki software has glaring deficiencies and they're not getting fixed very quickly. Complain to AOL too, for their open proxy implementation which lumps vandals and good users together and makes it impossible for Wikipedia to distinguish them. AOL is frankly a less-than-ideal platform for editing Wikipedia.

As things currently stand with both Mediawiki and AOL, there's no way to prevent such a situation from occurring and recurring. As I mentioned above, I have no way of even knowing which autoblocks are AOL autoblocks, and there's not much that can be done about it anyway. -- Curps 05:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

• Hi--Colin Ostrich 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™

I think you may have accidentally erased a number of comments on that last edit you nade to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™... I reverted it and mislabeled the edit as a vandalism revision. Sorry about that. --jackohare 05:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• On a related note, thanks for your post on Wikimeister's talk page (which s/he has since deleted, hiding the evidence), which alerted me to what s/he was doing. I'm almost certain s/he and Inspectorpanther are the same person - both access the Internet from RCN through routers on the Lower East Side of Manhatten - and may even be the same person as or someone very close to User:Lerner, the author of the article and a founding partner in this company. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Matt is teh pwn

Why was this user blocked? There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. --SPUI (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be mocking someone named Matt, but fair enough, it may be a stretch. I see someone has already unblocked it. -- Curps 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unicodification batch ready

There's another batch for Curpsbot-unicodify at Wikipedia:Bad links/encoded1, if you're interested. Thanks! -- Beland 06:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Curps. I think you accidentally removed some legitimate votes during this edit [17] Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's a little too easy for this to happen, the Mediawiki software should do a better job to signal it. -- Curps 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. If you are trying to clean up the page please go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, actually that's not what happened at all. Anyway, it's restored now. -- Curps 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why

Why are you reverting honest edits?

I am trying to learn the ropes here and contribute to the Wikipedia, you are ignoring and reverting all of my edits in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. If I am doing something wrong, LET ME KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE IT RIGHT, do NOT revert me blindly or I will report you to Mr. Wales for discipline.

What is wrong with my edits?

You vandalized Jimmy Wales and your earlier talk page comments could be interpreted as harassment. I reverted them. Given that track record, your edits to the template seem to be designed to encourage or suggest vandalism, and are hardly helpful. I took your edits to be vandalism and reverted accordingly. If they're not, at least be aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. -- Curps 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I "vandalized" Jimmy Wales, it was my first damn edit and I was figuring out the system. I was told to stop and so I asked for clarifications. I did *not* harass, that was you doing the harassment. My edits to the template suggest vandalism is possible, which, hey oh my goodness, it is. What is the purpose of the template if not to warn people vandalism is likely? As it is the template isn't helpful. My clairificaitons are. Your harassment of me and my editing is not, and is in direct violation of Wikipedia standards.

I doubt very much that your vandalism to Jimmy Wales was the first edit you ever made on Wikipedia (you, not the anon IP address). I've seen that "utter failure" edit before. -- Curps 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User: Jake Remingto.n

Hi, the user User:Jake Remingto.n sounds like the many vandals that you had blocked. --Hurricane111 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody looooves you

Kappa recently did you the favor of speedying CURPS BOT IS ANAL SEX WITH TATOR TOTS (which was created by newbie AHOBOT). BDAbramson T 04:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

vandlaism

noticed you reverted vandalsim on my user page, many thanks :-) Benon 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking

Per a request to the mailing list, I've unblocked 202.37.96.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (resolves to gatekeeper.tate.co.nz). It may well be a proxy, but I'm not sure how to determine if it's an open one or not - it doesn't look like it - and all previous edits looked decent.

Feel free to reblock if you feel it's needed, but if you do re-block it'd probably be appreciated if you could drop that chap an email explaining why. Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert De Niro

Hi, I notice you have spotted this persistant AOL vandal on De Niro's article, he is attacking other articles on Italian Americans, including Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Danny DeVito, Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese and possibly others by persistantly adding the name Marc Tufano in various ways to these articles. It seems that some people are of the impression that it is not worth blocking AOL ips as they are unlikely to be used by the same person again, but, if you look back at the history of De Niro you can see the attacks have been coming from the same ip since December 6th so in my opinion it is definitely justified to block AOL ips. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks Arniep 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, so are you saying every time this same person accesses a certain page they use a different ip, how does that work say if an ip they used for a certain page before is used by another user at exactly the same time? Arniep 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, so basically everyone in AOL who accesses a certain page will have the same ip, even if they access it at the same time? Also is one ip assigned to a page forever? Arniep 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another request for your bot

This one is for the Roma people page. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please? ---Khoikhoi 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, something else came up and I forgot about this. It's done now. -- Curps 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sorry for being impatient. --Khoikhoi 03:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia revert

I was extremely disappointed to find the "evaluation" section of Wikipedia completely gone and only represented by "critisism" in the "See also" subsection. Undoubtedly, I acted hastily. Cheers. WAS 4.250 04:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, I bet you'll want to comment! Dan100 (Talk) 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Blockinblox

Hola Curps: Como estas? I was contacted by a certain user:Blockinblox who wants to find out why you blocked him. As an administrator, this intrigues me too, particularly because we can reinstate or deny reinstallment to users. I'd be glad to help him if it was a mistake, but if there is enough reason for him not to reinstated then we need to stick by our principles.

Also, looking at your talk page, you are a hard security guard here. You shall be rewarded.

Feliz Christmas, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio los Bloods, Creeps and Curps (hehe, sounds cool ah?) Martin

See below. -- Curps 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you block me???

Hi, this is Blockinblox. I'm using a different computer now. Why did you block me with expiry of "infinite" from the English wikipedia before I even got a chance to make one edit?? I haven't done anything wrong, and I have never been blocked from any wiki ever before. For "reason" you put:

"please contact an administrator for verification purposes"...

What exactly am I supposed to verify please? I would very much like to be unblocked ASAP, as I haven't done anything wrong. Thank you. Please respond at User_talk:Blockinblox. Thanks again. User:Blockinblox

Probably it was an overreaction. I see another administrator has already unblocked. -- Curps 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking users without giving reasons

Would Curps please explain his blocking of this user? His reason "user ..." [sic] leaves me scratching my head. DrKinsey --02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As Castor Troy said to Dr. Malcolm Walsh: "Take one goddamn guess" [18] -- Curps 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps,

• First, you may think your motives are obvious; but failing to give reasons still doesn't cut the mustard.
• Second, you blocked this user when the user had made no contributions, still less engaged in any impersonation or vandalism. (I suggest that a user who makes no contributions and has no user page cannot be said to be impersonating another user, because no other wikipedians will encounter him unless they go looking in the lists of users and will then find only a blank page.
• This user and I are one and the same person. After I created this user account, and before you blocked it, I had ample opportunity to contribute, vandalise and impersonate using the account. I deliberately did not do so and have never at any point in time had any intention of doing so. (I even placed a doppelgaenger template on the user page so as to allay any fears of impersonation or other mischief.)
• I had never heard of the other user until just before I created the the user account in question after reading the interesting Wikipedia articles on impersonation and doppelgaengers.
• I doubt very much whether the other user edits primarily using this user account. (I suggest that anyone who thinks he does is naive.)
• I set up the user account in question as an experiment to find out how truly free and democratic Wikipedia is. I wanted to see whether blocking was targeted at users who cause problems for others, or whether it would be used arbitrarily and discriminatorily to protect those at the top of the Wikipedia pile.
• While this is not my name, it is the name of plenty of people in the world, not just one man. (No doubt many of these people also adopt a diminutive.)
• I ask you to unblock this user account and demonstrate that Wikipedia is not a clique structured around nepotism. By all means monitor the account. If you discover any impersonation you will have a reason to block it. DrKinsey 03:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can use the "DrKinsey" account for editing. Don't try to impersonate other users. -- Curps 03:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't presume to tell me what user account I am allowed to use for editing. I don't presume to tell you what user account you are allowed to use for editing.
• I see you haven't read my above words closely. I have explained what I have done, my reasons, and that I haven't impersonated anyone. You are well aware that I have not impersonated anyone. So please don't issue orders to me like "Don't try to impersonate other users." (I might as well issue the same order to you, but I'm not that arrogant.)
• Please address the points I have made above. It is discourteous to respond to calm, rational and detailed remarks (especially those which expressly request or implicitly call for a response) with rude one-liners.
• I look forward to your considered, detailed and courteous reply. (If you wish me to clarify anything, please let me know, and I shall be more than happy to oblige.) DrKinsey 03:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The block of User:Jimbo_Wa1es is valid. Enough said. --HappyCamper 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Curps to get back to me on this. I think that assertions about the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the block should be backed up by analysis and, where appropriate, reference to authority (policies, etc.). Regards, DrKinsey 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't use "Jimbo Wa1es" for editing, nor the Cyrillic-spoofing version either if that was also you. And now that you've created User:CURPS YOU GOD DAMNED FuCKING FUCK BOT STOP TELLing mE WHAT TO DO and User:I'LL CALL MYSELF WHAT EVER GOD DAMNED THING I WANT TO the DrKinsey sock has been blocked too. -- Curps 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps:

• I don't know what a "Cyrillic-spoofing version" is, and I didn't create those user accounts. Why do you assume that it was I? Don't you think that's a bit paranoid? Looking at your talk page, it seems that there are many others whom you have treated in a similarly high-handed way.
• My suspicion is that those responsible for the user accounts which express dissatisfction with you are people whom you have blocked for political/ideological reasons.
• Please check the IP addresses which created the user accounts. You will find that these accounts are nothing to do with me. (If I can provide any information you need I am willing to do so.)
• In our communications so far I have been, if I say so myself, a model of civility. Why should I abandon this approach and seek to antagonise you by creating swear-word user accounts containing your name? I ask that you employ as much politeness, courtesy and consideration in your communications with me as I have done in mine with you.
• After this storm in a teacup is resolved I will return to the issue of my experimental user account. DrKinsey (temporarily known as 220.245.179.130 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Mutant powers

Where did you obtain your supernatural abilities? I have not slept much this past day, and you've been around the whole time. Thank you for stepping in and lending a hand with the UCF article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)