Home

Talk Page

Contributions

My Stats

Archives

Subpages

Email

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012		2013 2014 2015

Hello, Elockid. You have new messages at Darkness Shines's talk page.
Message added 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The anti-Indian comments show DS is right DBigXray 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the remaining and protected Northeast India. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, regards--DBigXray 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping vandal known at 87.110.6.206 71.17.117.228 81.234.102.73 112.175.52.130 82.226.219.114 94.14.136.155 81.233.126.178 173.64.222.100 User:Dutyaxisss Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the sock case btw so I'm in the dark here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely might be Runtshit. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#South Indian Jingoism. I have expressed certain concerns connecting a certain user you have blocked. Please see to it if you get time. Snowcream (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked them. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you E. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a week after the user was blocked, 2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the suspected sockpuppet of the banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attacking me on my talk page and throwing out insults in his edit summaries. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with FoJ's MO. Could you please show the similarities? Fortunately for us though, that IP is a Comcast address, so we can deal with this efficiently. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FoJ's MO is to attack other users and have the same habits of: adding unsourced material and POV, blanking their personal talk pages, idolizing of a fan translation of the Japanese Silent Hill guide book Lost Memories, idolizing the United States, using capitals to convey emphasis, using of a random gender without knowing what gender the person she refers to is, personal attacks, attitude, misunderstanding of what an administrator is, and the Internet provider. The edits are from New Jersey, which is bordered by Pennsylvania. Would that make sense? By the way, another sock popped up, and that is 76.116.65.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should we protect the List of Splinter Cell characters page or block the user? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both IPs for 6 months. I don't think protection is necessary for now. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all of your great work here. Materialscientist handles 95% of my AIV reports, but I often see you around at AIV, dealing with vandals and spammers. Also, you blocked the imitation account of me a few months ago and I just wanted to thank you for that. See you around! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 00:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for Vandalism. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ... discospinster _talk 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that didn't happen the way I wanted. ... discospinster _talk 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	A Supra For You!
	Wassup Elockid? I see you've done a good job keeping all of the baddies of Wikipedia out! Jayemd (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. :) Elockid ^(Talk) 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for your protection of Flower of Life. Way too many {{Uw-vandalism1}} warnings to give out! I've started a sockpuppet investingation. Not sure if they are socks or just very well-coordinated. Thanks again! -- Luke (Talk) 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Pretty sure it's a coordinated attack. Probably 4chan or something. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever IPs you blocked weren't enough, see Special:Contributions/24.232.33.3 nableezy - 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny on the spot :). Thanks nableezy - 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this, given the hist, by Special:Contributions/201.231.95.189 suspicious. Geolocate same as earlier blocked IPs. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Farkur (talk · contribs) wasn't blocked, despite the CU finding. Could you correct this oversight? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It's been handled. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked an additional account, Micasalvatore (talk · contribs) with an  IP blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello! I noticed that you protected IQ and the Wealth of Nations‎, which was a needed move. Thank you. However (you knew that was coming, right?), the protected version of the page contains the Copyvio that has been the major focus of debate. The table was flagged as Copyvio here, and the table was removed by clerk and closed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_April_13 after removal. I request that you either reflag with the stern {{Template:Copyvio}} and let the poor gang at CP have another look, or just remove the material as the original clerk did. Thanks for taking a look. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an expert with handling copyvios, so I've asked Moonriddengirl to look again if you don't mind. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was handled before I wrote the message above. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging her though, I'm just glad it got handled. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elockid, I've been reverting changes on the T54/55 article over the last day or so and I think I came across another editor (User:G.Arshba) who might be a sock of users ArsA-92 and Gergea1. Seems to be Georgian, and strongly opposed to any mention of South Ossetia or Abkhazia as as anything other than Georgian territory. In any case, I would have added this to the sockpuppet investigation myself, but I cannot find the page. Rather, I found your username in the block log for one of the blocked socks, so I figured you were involved with the case. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't be more obvious. Account blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor,

Sorry for creating a problem due to ignorance about WP norms. I have already posted my reply to other senior contributor on the talk page of Ujjwal Patni before getting blocked. Pls find a copy of the reply here for your reference. Kindly suggest, How can i get help from senior WP editors regarding presentation as per WP norms, if i want to improve any article on the basis of merit. After reading the reply below, kindly suggest, shall i continue working on the article or not...

Thanks. I was not aware of the term sock puppetry till you mentioned it. As Indian readers, most of us read Ujjwal Patni, Shiv Khera, Karan Bajaj and Chetan Bhagat and so we started working on wiki with these articles. Many people work with a common ip address here and i cannot stop them completely. However I would request other known editors to read sock puppetry,work cautiously and disclose User shared IP address wherever necessary. In future, if anybody known to me who shares common ip address works on this article, i would immediately put a user shared id address template. I don't know about others but I will keep working on this article with you. I have decided to work on articles related to Indian authors and novelists , Indian books and articles related to cities of Chattisgarh and Madhyapradesh at least for next one year. After getting experience, i would move on to more important subjects. I already expressed previously that I wish to construct this article with your cooperation on the basis of merits. I would propose all the edits here. Shall i start a new discussion here for a fresh start and Shall i create my talk page, pls suggest. Expecting a positive response... Thanks TRANSASIA (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSASIA (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you need help fitting in, you could post the following text, {{helpme}} on your talk page. Regarding your statement with sockpuppetry, could you please give more information on that so that I have more background information? I don't recall being active on this articles. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of user USER:ABDEVILLIERS0007 [1] the all caps and talk of everyone being enslaved are a bit of a giveaway. Can you check this please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously them. But it's stale. Feel free to let me know if they return. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just FYI, GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) e-mailed me, asking me to unblock him, and giving basically the same "please unblock me, I promise I won't misbehave again" reason that has already been rejected several times. I advised him (on his talk page) that the only admin he should be trying to make such a case to is you — since you were the one who extended his current block to six months back in late May. Apparently he's e-mailed at least two other admins with similar requests. See this recent activity on his talk page. — Richwales 22:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's emailed me as well. I've replied to his email. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago you were kind enough to block an IP who was repeatedly vandalising the Vaikunthbhai Mehta page.

Sadly, the vandal has re-appeared on another IP. Indeed, if you look at the history of this page you will see that he has been around for a year or so under several IP addresses - always with the same content, which is somewhat offensive.

What can be done? Clearly our vandal uses internet cafes, wifi points in hotels etc so blocking these one-by-one will take forever and not be effective. As the article could benefit from a tidy-up, some two-way links and a bit more content, it would be a shame to protect it fully. Is there an intermediate step where it can be protected against anonymous IPs? That at least would force our friend into the open! It seems that the vandalism is only directed to this article, at least from these addresses.

I really appreciate your help and am sorry to drag you into a war - I only got myself involved by clicking 'random article'!! John M Brear (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block on 174.62.109.166 (talk · contribs) should be a major blow to them. If he/she becomes more disruptive in the future, I can semi-protect the page for ya. But at this time, I think the block on their IP should be a big help. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I'll keep watching and let you know if his new IP does it again. John M Brear (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Wikipedia has an article about a certain Matthew M. Urquhart, who supposedly worked to a project called "Project Home 2011" about electromagnetic levitation. However, I have made some investigation, that I posted in the talk page, with the conclusion that everything about this project is false, or, in Wikipedia terms, "complete bollocks". I have posted a request for deletion twice, but both times it was reverted by an anonymous editor claiming that I have a personal vendetta against this person, while I simply want unverifiable content (and complete bollocks) OUT of Wikipedia. I don't know what to do now, so please intervene. Thank you. Devil Master (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Master, I saw your note here and I have responded at your talk page. I have also nominated the article in question for deletion. Thanks, and Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a PROD is placed, it can be removed by anyone, even the article creator. It's really not appropriate to put the PROD tag back up when it's been removed For more information, you can find more information at WP:DEPROD. If a PROD is removed, your next best option is the nominate the article for deletion as Tgeairn has done. Hope this helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unblock request at User talk:216.211.75.244, relating to year long a range block you placed on 216.211.0.0/17 on 18 June 2012. I can see that there was a good deal of disruptive editing from an IP in this range just before the block, and I am willing to believe that, as a checkuser, you were able to link it to a specific user; in fact, I have a fairly good idea of what user it was. However, I do wonder about placing a year's block on such a large range, especially as there has been a good deal of constructive editing from the range. Perhaps you could let me know your thoughts. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't do large rangeblocks for extended periods of time. But that range is a special case. The user using that range is extremely disruptive and a long-term vandal. An you idea of the kind of disruption found is to compare File:Editwar.png on WP:Edit warring. The caption states Wikipedia page history showing a severe edit war. In comparison to the number of reverts, that image would be in the little leagues compared to what this vandal has done in just one page. They have shown the capability of doing much more rampant vandalism if there's no rangeblocks on them. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]