User talk:J.delanoy

My wheel-warring policy:

Admins: If you see me make a logged action that you think I should not have done, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo it without asking for my permission. However, if I marked the action as being done after running a checkuser query, or as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you should ask me or another checkuser before undoing it. In any case, if you do revert one of my actions, I would appreciate it if you tell me that you did so. Thanks!

Here's another one for your "funny stuff"

Hello J.delanoy, you might want to add this :-) (whole point diverted) Regards ≈ Commitcharge

How about this? =D Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI/Nrse

Sorry to bug you directly, but can you check another new account for sleepers? NNPRecruter (talk · contribs). The SPI that I filed got archived before a clerk noticed that I added another account. I don't want to re-open the SPI yet again. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. No other obvious sleepers. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning on a Page I never edited

I was given a warning for vandaling an article I never even edited, let alone visited prior to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rollinman

There shows all I did, which most of them were fixing up graphic problems or talk pages. The article in question was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramblin%27_Wreck

The IP in question was 99.140.199.130, which I don't remember ever using. Rollinman (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 99.140.199.130 hasn't edited in almost five months. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

I try to help the community by stopping someone who frequently uses the wrong warning template to other users and you say that's laughable and have the nerve to call me an idiot? This is an administrator? I'm speechless tommy talk 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving warnings in order is by no means a requirement. If someone is obviously vandalizing intentionally, I will rarely give them less than a level-3 warning. If someone does extremely blatant vandalism, such as racial slurs or particularly disgusting personal attacks, I typically issue a block with no warning whatsoever. Page-move vandalism, to me, is the ultimate. I show utterly no mercy. One disruptive page-move = indefblock, no questions asked, no hesitation.If you disagree with someone's choice of a warning level, tell them, but do not threaten unless unless it can be shown that the warnings were obviously inappropriate (e.g. giving a level three warning for inserting "hi" into an article, when the account or IP has no other edits, and is not obviously a sock). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

YEah, I did tell him politely. Of course he had to delete it (this was approx 3 weeks ago). And he has used level 4 warnings for little vandalism. If all we needed were level 3 or 4 vandalism templates, that's all that would exist. So, that's why I wasted my time in there with that comment, otherwise I wouldn't care. Your comment, however, given the context was inappropriate to the argument I held. tommy talk 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that you were an idiot. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted his (not so polite) finger-wagging back them because he removed several other sections on my talk page.[1] Calling me a liar[2], well, that was over the top. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very encouraging... </sarcasm> J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh that IP did lie. tommy talk 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like J. Delanoy because he answers requests for CheckUser quickly. He also rapidly blocks micreant anons. But, nonetheless, I have a question: Why is it appropriate for any anonymous editor to give out warnings? If anons feel so strongly about the Wikipedia project, why don’t they register and show a level of commitment to the project? As it is, anons simply reboot their modems, get new IP addresses, and start vandalizing anew. I’m not speaking about any particular anon involved in this discussion, specifically. It’s just that, at a more general level, the application of warning templates to a user’s talk page is such a powerful tool, resulting in blocks as it so often does, why should such power be vested in persons who won’t even register? A registered user cannot simply reboot his modem and get a new identity (i.e., a new IP). A registered user is held to account when he issues warning templates incorrectly. The anonymous editor issuing them incorrectly can skirt any responsiblity by simply rebooting his modem. So, why are anonymous editors permitted to apply warnings at all? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why anonymous users should be treated differently than logged-in users. There is no more power vested in an anonymous user warning users or reporting to AIV than there is any user (assuming the user is not an admin). The warnings and/or reports will still be judged based on their merits in either case. If people don't want to create accounts, that is their own choice. Your mention of the IP rebooting their modem applies just as well to any user who is logged in, as they could still log out, reboot their modem, and continue as an IP, making the practical difference irrelevant. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt he used to have an account here. No doubt. He was warning people 4 weeks ago when he had barely anything of a talk page. tommy talk 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ever hear of DHCP? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't do computer stuff. But based on the consistent tone and contrib patterns it is the same person w/ some type of experience. tommy talk 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He probably has other IPs that he has edited from in the past. Or it is also possible that he had an account, and decided for reasons of his own to let the account lie dormant. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you being so rude?? I mean seriously, I do assume good faith, or at least try. Those edits he mentioned above were not over the top, he did lie to me, or attempt to. I don't pretend to be perfect, and when I do something wrong I apologize but all you are doing is talking down to me and I really don't like it. tommy talk 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(quick response to Spike) It all goes all the way back to the Founding principles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Founding Principles: there are many of us who spend hours reverting the vandalism of anons who do not think that edits should be permitted without registration. WP has grown since the founding principles were first stated and WP has experienced years of anon abuse. Just like a country’s Constitution, sometimes amendments are necessary. Now, going back to DHCP, etc., I thought J. that the purpose of CheckUser was to let you peer behind a registered users account to determine if they are editing as an anon and thus sock puppetting. If all they have to do is reboot their modem and get a new IP address, assuming their ISP uses DHCP (mine uses semi-static IP addresses), and then edit anonymously, how effective is CheckUser and other sock puppet investigative tools? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made more than 275000 edits reverting vandalism. I do not think that IP editing should be disabled. If anything, my experience has shown that while most vandalism does come from IPs, the converse to this is not true. Most IP edits are not vandalism. Unless that changes, my view on IP editing will not change. With regard to checkuser, first, most ISPs only give people access to a small number of IPs, which can be rangeblocked if necessary. Also, some ISPs do not let you get a new IP by simply rebooting your router. I have currently had the same ISP for almost three years. In that time, I have had less than 10 IP addresses, and I can assure you that I have rebooted my router far, far more than ten times in the last three years. Second, even if we did disable anonymous editing, it still would not help, because rebooting your router and vandalizing (without logging in) is only slightly less difficult than rebooting your router, creating a new account, and vandalizing. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Boy, now I am confused. At the beginning your answer made me think, “Ah, good CheckUser has some value and they are able to tell when people are sock puppetting and it’s worth reporting.” But, then J., your last bit about how easy it is for even a registered user to get ’round the failsafes and still vandalize makes me wonder why we should bother. <sigh> Oh, by the way, how did you figure out how many of your edits were vandalism reverts? Is there some special counter somewhere? Just curious … (Sorry to digress so far from your initial issue with Tommy; I just find your talk page instructive …) — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First, CheckUser does not only look at IP addresses. Second, did you read what I said about most ISPs not allowing their customers access to hundreds of thousands of IP addresses?

I know I have around 275000 reverts/warnings because I have a total of around 287000 edits (including deleted), and something like 12000 edits that are not in the article space or the user talk space. Given that I do revert vandalism in other namespaces than just the mainspace, the fact I do make edits to the mainspace and user talk space that are not related to vandal-patrol tend to even out. Soxred93 has a tool that can tell you how many edits were made with various tools, but it does not work for Huggle before May or June 2008, nor does it work with users with more than one hundred thousand edits. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, J., I did read what you said about “most ISPs not allowing their customers access to hundreds of thousands of IP addresses.” Did you read where I said that even my own ISP keeps one using the same IP address now for months? (That’s why I call it a “semi-dynamic” or “semi-static” IP! :) ) Meaning, I’m well aware of this. No need to be so curt. Anyway, our IPs used to change constantly, but not any more. Here, it’s part of Canadian ISPs wanting to be able to assist law enforcement in cracking down on child pornography. Thankfully they also keep detailed records so when one’s IP changes they record the dates so one is not credited with what others have done with one’s new IP previously, or will do with one’s old IP in the future. As for CheckUser, I did already understand that its purpose is to deal with registered users by looking at which IPs registered accounts use, and which registered accounts use what IPs. (Thanks for that link, by the way! It’s very informative!) So, I guess what you are saying is that, since IP addresses these days don’t tend to change as frequently, it makes CheckUser a useful sock puppet investigative tool. Which is important, because it tells me to continue to have faith in the system. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My talk prot

Thanks. Seems I made somebody angry :-) I semi'd it yesterday and the ips (ATT range) switched to undoing a bunch of my edits. Seems my 2 week block of User:KgKris started it. That user even stated that his "friends" were helping in regards an edit war on talk:Human. Seems an indef is in order, but an addit. range block on ATT mightn't be too popular. Any suggestions? Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. 32.0.0.0/8 is waaaaay too big to block. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that, just trying to figger out how to deal with an irate ip hopper. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really anything you can do. Just apply semi-protection without mercy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, seems to have changed targets :) Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm used to it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Three entries in a row. This is getting to be a habit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Would it be possible to see if two IPs are one in the same? 32.177.111.155 was editing vandalizing a page and after several warnings to that IP, 209.183.55.115 pops up and templates me. The first is out of LA and the second is out of Concord, CA....right next to each other. Obviously a user using either a cell or another computer. Would it be possible to checkuser these accounts and if they are the same block them? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. What would be gained by having a positive correlation drawn between them? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry for one. Also, once I said on AIV (where 209.193.55.115 posted also, in an attempt to get me in trouble) where the IPs were located, all activity stopped on both IPs, so I think they knew the jig was up. Just good to have some confirmation for the blocking admin on AIV that there is socks a-foot :) and not just the DUCKs are a-quackin'. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. In particular, the checkuser tool is generally not useful to draw a line connecting two IPs to each other without, say, having an account that has edited from both IPs. Even if I did run the check, it is virtually certain that it would be inconclusive. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that is cool. To be honest, I didn't think it would show a "line" between the two and now we have a third, so I guess I will relay on my "duck meter". :) Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Akahum wikipedia page deleted

Hi there. Some months ago (21 July 2009) you deleted my artist page 'Akahum', the reason was that there was no reliable, third party sources. I realised after scrutinising my page there was little in the way of 'reliable third party sources' and did not pursue the action. However, I now have a review of Akahum from The BBC News. Please can you undelete my Akahum page so I can apply this and other reliable third party sources I now have. Many thanks, Unlimbo (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) David Unlimbo Unlimbo (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Rich Farmbrough, 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Request to protect this page

Hello. I just declined a request to protect this page at WP:RFPP under the assumption that since you are currently active, you would protect it yourself if the IP edits were really annoying you. However if my presumption is incorrect and you would like to have the page protected, just lemmie know. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Erk. I didn't even think to check to see if you were on and working! *blush* I assumed (yes I know) that you were offline or you would have protected already. Sorry, Kralizec! for the un-needed RFPP.- Sinneed 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just protected this page to prevent further carnage...IPs have attacked it overnight. If you have any issues, just ask on my talk page. Willking1979 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And I went ahead and blocked all of the offending IPs as open proxies. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way..

..a new idea for a Wikipedian event. Sometimes, the encyclopedia itself needs a break. A Wikibreak is only necessary whenever a user is feeling Wikistressed, or any other reasons for that matter. In this event, Wikipedia pages cannot be edited by even the largest of the ArbComs, not even Jimbo. Well, to prevent any administator incident and excessive vandalism that continues to occur every single day. Whaddaya think?--7107delicious (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone requested a block a year ago...

...and it sounds strange enough to be familiarized. So a block is requestable, isn't it? By the disruptive editor itself? That's odd! Very odd!--7107delicious | ngopi di Warung Cinere, yuukk... 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The last time I had someone request a block, it was a school. I looked at the school's website, and contacted their IT department to verify that the person requesting the block did indeed represent the school. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Unimportant) request for deleted articles

Hey, I see you were also around since 2006, so I'm just wondering... This request isn't very urgent, and I'm not sure if this isn't allowed, but do you remember the old WP:LTA articles on Willy on Wheels and MilkMan, and can you provide me a copy of each via e-mail? I understand WP:DENY, but if you can just e-mail me the article copies without userfying, no trolls are fed, and I'm happy. It's just for my own nostalgia, you don't have to do it.

If you can, thanks. If not, thanks anyway. Good day. ^(C/SSG)G2sai_(talk) 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want them? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

block

Hi j.delanoy. Thanks for unblocking me from editing. but why did you block me in the first place? Waverly57 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)waverly57

Godhra train burning REDIRECTs

FYI, to help resolve the naming dispute, I've created REDIRECTs to Godhra train burning at "Godhra train attack" & "incident" & "massacre", with and without capitalized words, so readers trying to look up any of those titles will see the surviving article. This overwrites your deletions, but I hope that's acceptable to you. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's perfectly fine. I only deleted them because that's what I normally do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Has this user been sufficiently warned for conflict of interest violations? I'm not sure if there are any other steps a simple editor can take.--otherlleft 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of concerns...

Hi, it looks like you deleted a page entitled, Platypus Media. Although you may have not heard of this some-what small publishing house, I believe it is worthy of a page and I urge you to reconsider. I'm going to create a new page with some of the basic info. Let me know if there is something I should specifically do.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorhere (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A reply regarding the Platypus Media article was made at User talk:Trevorhere#Platypus Media. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've suggested he use his subpages to develop the articles. I took the liberty of copying the "Platypus Media" article there, to preserve his work in case it gets speedied from articlespace. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of 72.13.91.132

I think you went way too soft on blocking the above IP for what he did to Zink Dawg's page... one week is absurd. These are death threats we're talking about, not just a simple "Fuck you" or "Fag." The IP should be blocked indefinately as is appropriate with endless other examples of vandalism on here. Wikipedia has no place for out of control thugs. Do reconsider.GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that sort of thing all the time. A week is my usual response. Also, IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely, no matter what they do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if 72.13.91.132 is using a open proxies because of this edit. The very first edit they did was on my user space. [3] See contributions. User:Mfield Blocked User talk:174.137.53.232 for 24 hours.--Zink Dawg -- 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See this, A new death threat form 72.13.91.132. I think.--Zink Dawg -- 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 174.137.53.0/24 for a month, there were no contributions from this entire block other than these harrassments from two IPs in the range that have been used so far. Mfield (Oi!) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. And bro you need to call the police. Did you know that hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in California? He may be violating our tough state hate crimes law. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for making my day!

Mr. Wayne has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Yeah, I was tired and overworked, then I saw the list of humor on your page. COMPLETELY MADE MY DAY!!! Keep up the great work! The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed my list :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)