User	Talk	Contrib's	Awards	Email	Userbox Archive	Userbox Personality Essay	Admin Page

Archives

January 2006-September 2006 October 2006-Jan 4/07 Jan4/07-March 21/07 March 21/07-July 24/07 July 27/07-Jan 7/08 Jan 8/08-May 15/08 May 19/08 -Aug 23/08 September 1/08-

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thanks for taking care of them. Can you also keep an eye on Chensiyuan (talk · contribs) who has been involved as well. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope you can look at the edit histories of Thierry Henry and Cesc Fabregas and appreciate that user:Bruninho and his IP socks have been belligerently forcing home edits that breach the wp:mos. I think these persistent breaches, given that they have been explained to the user and on Henry's talkpage to no avail, constitute vandalism. How should this be dealt with then? If I keep reverting, it's 3RR even though I think it's reverting vandalism. If I stop, the user hides behind a dynamic IP range and keeps slotting in those edits. Thank you. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Thank you for responding to my request for page protection for "business letter". I understand that my request was denied for lack of recent vandalism. I wonder if you were able to see the recent history on that page because for some reason the "history" link on the request for protection page did not show any recent history at all (i do not know why). If you were to open the Business Letter page and go to page history you will see what I'm talking about. the page was most recently vandalized on the following dates:

07:33, 6 March 2009, 02:14, 27 February 2009 , 23:23, 23 February 2009, 23:22, 23 February 2009 , 23:15, 23 February 2009, 20:51, 19 February 2009 , 22:49, 17 February 2009 ,19:27, 16 February 2009, 22:53, 1 February 2009, 22:51, 1 February 2009 ,20:03, 1 February 2009, 22:35, 31 January 2009 , 18:12, 29 January 2009, 17:59, 29 January 2009 , 21:14, 28 January 2009, 22:28, 27 January 2009, 22:06, 26 January 2009...

This pattern continued on over the last year. It appears to be all done by one person (similar vandalism) but with different IP addresses. Its extremely annoying to have to keep checking this page and then find whole parts missing or made nonsensical. It is also important to note that this page is not edited (for improvements) very often, and that 98% of all edits over the last two months have been vandalism or reverts due to vandalism.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Jonnyhottrod[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comment for [1] would you please be able to tell me how i would do that thank you.

Take care

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 03:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you recently unprotected Maltese people at my request, and said you were keeping an eye on it. There's been a new wave of activity, none too positive. Your involvement would be appreciated. It has been suggested that the anon at work is a known sockpuppeteer. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's been semi-protected! we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the talk page discussion seems to reveal that my edits were preferred to Pietru's. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you have been banned from the Wikipedia community. Crowing, under such circumstances especially, is in very poor taste. And rather pathetic. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the anon has been uncovered to be User:Iamandrewrice. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you ranting about? No, if one user accuses me of being someone, it does not make it so - a little old thing called a checkuser is used first. I'd be careful how you tread Pietru. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, all I did was unprotect the page because there is no point in keeping full protection on for a month. I was watching the page to see if the edit war started again as a neutral party, and I replied saying it had been re-protected because I try to answer requests/questions that are on my talk page. I have not taken a side or position on the issue, I was just holding up the principle that pages shouldn't been fully protected for excessive lengths. That is the extend of my involvement. -Royalguard11(T) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]