Hi Reaper Eternal. Can you grant rollback to my alternative account, Jianhui68? Though I rarely use that account, but I will still use that account for testing purposes. I may also use that account on public computers too. So please grant rollback to my alternative account. Thanks.

By the way, how do you hire a bot to help me to archive your talk page? Currently I archive my talk page myself. But it would be efficient if there is a bot to do it for me. Jianhui67 Talk 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) He uses ClueBot III to archive his talk page. You can find instructions for how to have either it or MiszaBot III archive your talk page by following the instructions here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reaper Eternal will you please view my request I placed 2 days ago?

And can you help me to place the code on my talk page for Cluebot III to archive my talk page by each month? I'm not sure how to do so. Jianhui67 Talk 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the rollback request after seeing that someone had replied to your question. Someone else has already done that too.

To archive by month, I think you can use: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Jianhui/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=168|index=no}}. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually asked Spencer about archiving and tested MiszaBot III. It will archive Spencer's message on my talk page tomorrow at about 04:00 to 05:00 (UTC), since I put it to archive a message which is 3 days old. I want to see if MiszaBot III can archive my request properly tomorrow, so that I can continue using that bot. Jianhui67 Talk 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revert the Talk page above and revoke the IP's privileges. - Areaseven (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't take this threat seriously, it would be nice to block User:Ol' Dirty Jedi and their other accounts as soon as possible per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OneMadScientist. Thanks. I am One of Many (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sockpuppets. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Reaper Eternal. Could you please be so nice as to delete something from the history of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NawlinWiki? Thanks! Ginsuloft (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Took care of it myself, thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lovely, another nimp link. (Don't go there; virus awaits you.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one at [1]. Is it simple to remove it from the pagemove log, i.e. can you do it without deleting the page? Ginsuloft (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hid it. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't be bothering you anymore (just realized there are dozens, if not hundreds of them still left and probably no one cares). I'll go through them and delete them if/when I become an admin myself.. Ginsuloft (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reaper Eternal,

I saw you blocked my account Reeespecto. I don't know what else to do - but that was my attempt to protect the integrity of a Page that has been vandalized since its inceptio: Luis D. Ortiz. This user LuisDOrtega is really good at making himself look good. If you see the history of the article he is always shedding a bad light on the subject and misinterpreting events. I do not work for the subject or am I friends with him like LuisDOrtega has stated. However I have followed his career closely and I'm very certain that what LuisDOrtega is doing is trying to slander his image. I don't mind having negative aspects in there however I think there should be some space for the good things the subject has accomplished. I greatly appreciate your help in this matter.

Kind regards, Nameofjustice (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from your page that you want to write articles not drama so I could see why reading this might not be of your interest. However I feel that if you look into it you will quickly see that I'm not trying to create drama but an impartial article.

LuisDOrtega tried to make my account seem bogus when if you take a look at his contributions all he has edited has been Luis D Ortiz. There have also been other moderators that have understood what LuisDOrtega is trying to do and in one instance gave it semi-protection for a while. You can also see LuisDOrtega including the "controversy" sections of Luis into the show's page Million Dollar Listing New York even though is irrelevant to mention it over there.

In order to portray how he has tried to shed a negative light on the subject here are some examples of his work:

1. ) If you go to the source that talks about Bait & Switch it is very clear that the subject talks about how it was widely practiced in the industry - however LuisDOrtega is quick to make it seem as if all that the subject did was bait and switch - and that was all that his worked involved.

2.) I tried including that Douglas Elliman is the largest real estate company in New York City - LuisDOrtega deletes this given he doesn't want the subject related to the #1 firm.

3.) LuisDOrtega is very adamant to include that the subjects mother wanted to "kill him" - in one of the edits he even stated that the mother wanted to kill the subject and his brother out of suffocation when the source just said that they felt suffocated given their circumstances in their home town.

4.) Ortega also tries to imply that the subject's use of his father's credentials to obtain a loan is part of a controversy when it is common practice in New York to use a co-signer to obtains loans. From the article it really isn't clear wether he used a co-signer or not so it shouldn't be mentioned in either way.

5.) I have tried to name the Film section as Film Directing and Ortega repeatedly renames it Very Short Film Directing - trying to belittle its contribution.

In summary - everything that is negative about the subject is OK to be included in the article but anything that might be remotely positive about the subject is interpreted as vandalism. It is very frustrating. If I include a quote from the CEO and President of DouglasElliman saying that the subject is a great addition to the company - Ortega deletes it saying that the article is not a resume. Well I believe is part of the subjects Biographical history.

I greatly appreciate you taking of your time in reading this and hope that you are able to see where I'm coming from. Pleasehelpicomeinpeace (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the auto block request. Does this mean that the next time I log in from the autoblocked IP, *my* account will always be able to edit (even if the IP is autoblocked)? Noopur28 (talk)

I deleted the autoblock on the IP itself. Thus, you shouldn't have any more issues with being autoblocked. If vandals keep vandalizing on your IP, resulting in it being continually autoblocked, let me know and I'll give you IP block exemption so this will never happen again. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I only got to find all his other accounts through the photos he uploaded to commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy Reaper.

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that rybec could use a little teaching about how to add newly found socks to a currently open case? I mean he has what, 10 or 11 SPIs to a day? That's unnecessarily a lot for clerks like you to look over. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish he was wrong, but he isn't. There really are that many socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you for some advice, since you seem to be an experienced admin and EFM (and I like your username), just about when is it appropriate to request for permission at WT:EF, if at all (instead wait until you pass a RfA and make yourself one)? I would find this user right useful for finding vandalism quickly (if I understood the "test this filter" button correctly and it isn't actually a "break Wikipedia" button) and possibly silent logging (I am aware of condition bloat issues), also to see hidden filters of LTAs. So, I am asking you, when should I request it, in the near future, or not now and not in any foreseeable future (forget it totally)? Thanks for your advice. Respond when you aren't busy. Talk page stalkers may also comment.

Also, congratulations on your promotion! Hopefully you are enjoying your new toy. Ginsuloft (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Test this filter" is used for testing edit filters, not finding vandalism. Additionally, you will need a good understanding of regular expressions before requesting EFM. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question; I've found a couple of FPs recently where an editor had edited a line which if it had been added would have triggered a filter; however in these cases the text which would have triggered it is already there (and is valid). I'm guessing this is something to do with added_lines, but is it something we simply have to live with? No big deal, just a query really. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because, when editing a line, the edit filter sees the line being removed and a slightly different line added in. Could you give me an example, and I'll see what I can do? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]