Test Test --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently doesn't work. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did the quick sig there. The Timestamp. >>> is a timestamp sig. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is my gift to you (if you like classic rock)! --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you placed a 31 hour block on him for my report of his vandalism; there is one other thing I've just discovered, based on his pattern and prior abuse under the separate IPs: he's a sock of User:Jamesinc14. Yanking him entirely would probably be a better course of action. (and thanks!) --Mhking (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we can't indef-block IPs unless they are open proxys. I kept his block for vandalism, though.   jj137 ^♠ 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mate; always nice when someone edits an article I've created and it wasn't to flag it for speedy deletion. :)

I appreciate the redirect fix (for capitalizing Fryderik Frontier's last name). MJustice (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time, I used a batch deletion script located here. east.718 at 05:41, December 29, 2007

[1]. That is why I wanted a perspective. I'm glad I learned something bymyself through. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 06:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is putting up links to Google vandalism? --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the mass edits (are those mass edits?) made at the Sandbox. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=180887711&oldid=180887471 This is an example. I'm wandering if saying something like "Please refrain from saying that we suck as you did here. Thank you. (sig)" would be ok? I have to go for the next 40 minutes because I have to write a quick summary before the Pats Giants game. See ya! --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I think something like that could be considered vandalism.   jj137 ^♠ 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assist on the Michael Parenti page. There is currently much pressure from the two IP, (one)person editor to get the references up. I understand the importance, however it is a Holiday and I am a student and work at University. My parents visit comes first.

Thank you for template for citation. If I am unable to make it work correctly in sandbox, who do I ask for assist?

Last Question......Is there anything I can do to bring anonymous IP ( history of edit war, vandalism) to accountability. I really want this to be better article, not agendas.

Thank You again, JJilliana27 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't look like there's enough vandalism to have the article semi-protected right now.   jj137 ^♠ 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring my userpage, Nick Martin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, although I don't know what context it is used in.   jj137 ^♠ 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reaction. The pity is, you did not protect the "clean" version. Now we have to stay just with that agressive Anti-Habash text, we wanted to keep from beeing inserted over and over again :-( --89.56.167.80 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a revert to this version - AloknaBot 05:34, 18 November 2007, as it has been used for several reverts in the near past - adding the changes, that were made by PixelBot 13:50, 28 December 2007 --89.56.167.80 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to that version.   jj137 ^♠ 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Did you mean to block that user per {{UsernameBlock}}? I don't see what's wrong with the account name. — Coren ^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked it because it is similar to User:Claxson, a sock master, and may cause confusion (or it may just be a sock of that person).   jj137 ^♠ 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JJ137,

Did you know that you went from #1288 most active contributor to #1286 on this list? I changed that on your userpage. Nice job with over 14,000 contributions!!! --Ohmpandya (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, I updated just a day or two after the updated list came out, and it went up a couple places because of people removing themselves from the list.   jj137 ^♠ 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The newsletter also looks good this week. STORMTRACKER 94 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote the final seciton in it. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 02:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I would have given him an indef-block for vandalism only account, but it seems he did have some good faith edits.   jj137 ^♠ 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of his edits weren't bad. I think he was just a newbie that didn't know his way around Wikipedia yet. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it seems. He probably just got aggrevated that people were warning him not to vandalize. I guess he can use the 24 hours as a cool down period.   jj137 ^♠ 01:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We probably could still use one more article, if we can find something to write about in time.   jj137 ^♠ 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your RFPP; I don't think there's much need to protect the article now that Ad84 is blocked. When his block is over, we may need to. I'll keep it watchlisted.   jj137 ^♠ 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: RFPP) - I requested the RPP before I put him on AIV. The RFPP can probably be cancelled for the time being and if need be, like you said, I can re-request. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it if you like. You shouldn't have to re-request it tommorow, as since I have it watchlisted I should be able to see if Ad84 is back at it again. Of course, if I am not getting around to it you should re-request it.   jj137 ^♠ 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if I could...didn't want to get in trouble. I did withdrawn/delete it just a moment ago though. Thanks for your help. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking the spam only account. He was definitely frustrating me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the edits were made the game was not over. RC-0722 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking whn the pats were assured a win or when the game clock read 00:00? RC-0722 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then it was my fault . I've been fighting vandals since the game began so I must have gone overboard with the undo button and I apologize. RC-0722 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to be funny. Multiply my writing effort by 5, and I would be on Page 2 on espn.com

PATRIOTS GO 16-0! WOO! --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you removed the image of lizzy Caplan? Did I set up the templates wrong or something because if I did, tell me how to fix it :) Beachdude0213 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See CSD I3.   jj137 ^♠ 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this newsletter because you are a member of WikiProject Boston Red Sox. If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here. JJBot (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently unprotected Afghanistan, stating as your reason that there had only been vandalism from IPs. However, the main problem on that article is not so much the vandalism but the sockpuppeting. I don't mind having it unprotected, but can I ask you to help watching it while it's being edited? Every new account that turns up on that or any related article continuing the old ethnic disputes between Pashtuns and Tajiks and about the demonym "Afghan" and "Afghanistani" is a sock. Since your unprotection, there have been at least two new ones, including lots of edit-warring, at least one bogus 3RR report by a banned sock against a legitimate user, and so on so forth. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help keep an eye on it. Do you think it should be reprotected to any level?   jj137 ^♠ 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the quick turnaround. There are several registered users who I'm sure were getting tired of the attacks. I had e-mailed User:Húsönd on two occassions to make sure I was doing the right thing here. Thanks again. --CobraGeek (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the newsletter. The bot seems to be working fine. Our only problem is that we didn't get three articles. No deal through. It's hard to create three new articles of old Red Sox players. Ever thought of doing only one? --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that only one person, User:Mega Man 5 and his sockpuppet, User:142.59.1.45 support having the section in question the way it currently is, and everyone else who has commented (including myself) support the other way. (please see Talk:Nintendo GameCube#Section: "Marketing Share" tense for discussion on this.) This problem has been ongoing for some time, and I would like to request that you block Mega Man 5 and his sock and unblock Nintendo GameCube because this is a case of WP:OWN by Mega Man 5. Thank you for your help. Thingg (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not cease reverting USC articles I'll have you blocked. You are helping an avowed hater of USC in CobraGeek, just read his pathetic userpage, the loser HATES USC. Don't make me seek action against you.