User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tiptoety. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 37

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if I turn your designs into templates? I saw what you did for User:GreatOrangePumpkin; I was amazed. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. What's mine is yours. Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Adopt-a-user Barnstar
		I was looking over my old talk archives today, from three years ago, and saw and remembered just how helpful you were to me as a new editor, and how much promise I showed back then. I just wanted to thank you for putting so much effort into me back then, and to apologize for betraying your trust like I did back then. I was young, overeager and immature. I hope you can forgive a fool. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As you may know, the project is inactive, but I just joined. I thought that we should verify that each member is active. If you want to keep being in this wikiproject, please write "# {{user|Tiptoety/Archive 33}}" here; if you do not do it before 19:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC), you will be removed from the list. All the users that were removed will be put onto this page. Thank you,

Knock, Knock

Who is there?

C3

C3 who?

Not "who", its C3P0!

~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Knock Knock!

Who’s there?

Doris!

Doris who?

Doris locked that’s why I am knocking!

---

Knock Knock!

Who’s there?

Cash!

Cash who?

No thanks, but I’d like some peanuts!

---

Knock Knock

Who's there?

Amos!

Amos who?

A mosquito just bit me!

---

--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety. On July 2nd, you blocked User:WikiAlphaBot, a spam-bot that was sending annoying emails to registered users. This morning, I recieved a similar email from User:WikiAlphaRobot. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAlphaBot, but since you familiar with the situation I thought I would let you know as well. Singularity42 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, CheckUser confirms that the account was mass emailing people. Regardless, they are now blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Wuzzupbob created their account yesterday, and began their contributions with two apologies [1] [2] for their past actions as User:Dodgechris.

Dodgechris is still indefinitely blocked without talk page access, for extensive sockpuppeting. Their talk page has comments from yourself that there will be "no second chance this time". However, three years is quite a long time (although I haven't checked if any of the sockpuppets are more recent than that), and it's very easy for someone's behaviour to change substantially in that time, especially at the age implied by some of the sockpuppet usernames.

Perhaps you could offer some thoughts on a way forward. They've said on my talk page that they will refrain from editing with the new account, in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just declined a request at RPP from Wuzzupbob to unprotect the Dodgechris talk page. I suggested they come here, or failing that, it's a matter for ANI I suspect. GedUK  18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. We might be giving contradictory messages here - I've advised them not to continue engaging in on-wiki requests and discussion with the Wuzzupbob account, because it can be seen as evasion of the original block. I've recommended requesting an unblock by email. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety. I have unprotected the User talk:Dodgechris page to allow the user to make a proper unblock request. If you object to this and would like it handled some other way, feel free to act accordingly, I will defer to your judgment. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The title of this thread seems perfect for a headline. Random, I know, but still... --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that you had returned from your wikibreak, so I did not let you know that I mentioned you in this ANI report. My apologies. Perhaps you can address my earlier questions on that IP now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want Delicious. You have had your question answered by a multitude of users, I'm not sure what more I can add. Has the IP in question caused disruption since? Tiptoety ^talk 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you had returned again. Perhaps you could leave a message on my talk page when you reply to this? Although several people offered comment, my questions for you remain the same. To start with, you checkusered overtly racist editor User:Giornorosso but did not block their IP, despite their sockpuppetry. Why did you not block the IP? Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Yeah, I'll leave a note on your talk page from now on. As for Giornorosso, I'll be honest I do not recall the specifics but as I asked before, has he returned under the IP or any other account for that matter to continue his socking? If so, I would be happy to run another check and block the underlying IP. If not then I really see no reason to change anything at this point, if the blocks we have in place are working. Tiptoety ^talk 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The current situation with Giornorosso is irrelevant. I'm sure you understand by now that this is about your actions. This is, I believe, the third time I have tried to get you to answer some simple questions. In both previous attempts, you have gone on extended wikibreaks rather than answering. Since I have been unable to get satisfactory (or any) answers form you, I will follow it up elsewhere. You may wish to review earlier discussions and refresh your memory. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are not happy with the way I handled the case, that's been made clear. That said, the current situation with Giornorosso is very relevant, it shows that the actions I took have been successful given he has not been editing. As for why I chose not to block the IP, I believe that has been made clear to you by others on the AN/I thread you are referencing above. I choose not to block IPs all the time, given the nature of the IP and/or the specifics of the case. I simply did not feel an IP block was necessary. I'm getting the impression that no matter how many explanations you get you will not be happy with the outcome. As such, I encourage you to reach out to other venues to resolve this matter as I will no longer be responding to you on my talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 02:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The actions taken in regard to Giornorosso were taken by other admins, in part because I requested them. You seem to have forgotten that your actions in that case were initially not blocking the IP of a sockpuppeting racist editor, and then, when pressed by me, blocking what was clearly a static IP for a week only. I would have been willing to accept that not blocking the IP was simply an oversight on your part if you had said so at the time. You did not. Instead you choose to block for a very short time, despite the fact that you have blocked IPs for up to a year. Earlier today you stated that you "do not recall the specifics". Now you seem to recall enough of them to say that you "simply did not feel an IP block was necessary". You did not feel that it was necessary to block the IP of racist sockpuppeteer. So, not an oversight. What I have been asking for literally months now, is why did you not feel it was necessary? What were the "specifics of the case" that made you take that decision? You are the only person capable of answering those questions, not anyone on ANI or anywhere else. Your evasiveness in regard to this matter has made me concerned about your ability to properly use the tools to which you have access. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex ^discussion 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for some time, and can not seem to locate it in my inbox. You can either resend it, otherwise it is likely the issue has already resolved itself. Additionally, even if you resend it, expect some delay in a response as I am still fairly inactive with wiki matters. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk

Knock knock. --Trevj (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Who's there? Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stan. --Trevj (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Stan who? Tiptoety ^talk 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stan Dupp! --Trevj (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi, I'd like to let you know about a probable block evasion by 89.110.23.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). I have left a warning on their talk page and at the talk page in question. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have blocked the IP for block evasion. While they have moved to the talk page, which is preferred in cases of edit warring; they have only done so because the article is protected and they are still trying to push the same disruptive agenda. Let me know if another pops up. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one:

91.122.86.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I just removed their edits on the talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

See also the well known

91.122.93.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Antichristos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DVdm (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let me know if any others pop up and I will look into a range block. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here they are: 89.110.2.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). More to follow, no doubt :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 07:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And again, in article Spacetime with another attempt.

89.110.31.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

DVdm (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented a range block. Hopefully that will slow him down for a while. Tiptoety ^talk 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

... not that he's going anywhere fast of course :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nom, nom, nom... Tiptoety ^talk 03:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Earth Wikipedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Heavenly Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Hello Tiptoety, please see the edits of Earth Wikipedian (talk · contribs) and Heavenly Dragon (talk · contribs), something tells me that EW is now HD. They both don't want to discuss things when I bring forward my queries to them and they both keep making the same erroneous format ("Chinese text") input at the top of various article pages without checking through WP:MOS for guidelines for the placement of such templates, this also had the inherent effect of messing up the page format in the process. Could you please take a look? Thanks, I really need to go take a break and an aspirin to take care of that throbbing headache... TTYL. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicions were correct. Both of these accounts are  Confirmed socks of Calvin Marquess (talk · contribs) (see prior SPI case). As such, they are now blocked. Is there anything more I can help you with? Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing the headache... seems that you checking, confirming and blocking is way much better than the aspirin I took a while back. Just curious, should I open an SPI to document your findings as well as for record purposes? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nah, not unless you want to note my findings on the cases talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I would love for you to make it so, just for record purposes on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Calvin Marquess. To begin with, I've never expected that these two could be some smelly socks. d:) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• People's Liberation Army Air Force (talk · contribs)
• Got one highly possible case here, see this edit of his that just triggered my alarm bells again. Man... I can't even sleep in peace with this idiot running around this way. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• They are already blocked. That said, if more accounts start to pop up I will look into to possibility of a range block. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Incorrigible, really, the guy is so incorrigible that I'm at a lost for words when he tried to cover up his shame today by inserting the "retired" tag in the three talk pages (which I've amended to the correct one which is "indef" instead), I think your offer of a range block might have to come into the picture after all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Arun1paladin, wonder why the sockmaster is yet to be block. Also, a newly registered editor pops out from nowhere and made some insight-dropping. TBH, I think this is going to get interesting. Or as a parody of the slogan of Carl's Jr goes: "this is going to get messy!" In fact, it does look very messy right now... your CU powers is therefore greatly appreciated. d:) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• It appears another Checkuser has already handed this while I was sleeping. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help above but I'm afraid you might have to intervene soon as the newly registered User:Muppanar is now quacking very loudly. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• CU is coming back  Inconclusive, what a mess of IPs. I think that will have to be based mostly on behavioral evidence. Tiptoety ^talk 03:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'd figured that as much since I've double checked the IPs and they are, as you said, a mess... but don't let my headache spread to you, you have the proper tools while I'm working with third party solutions to conduct my traces. This is the first time I come across such a big mess! Facepalm... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've consulted with another CheckUser who also cannot make sense of the CU results. If there was more I could do, I would. Remember,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you blocked JagMoore (talk · contribs) as a sock of MickMacNee (talk · contribs). I cannot find a SPI for JagMoore - what are the grounds for suspecting the sock? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that the reason would be based on checkuser data, which is not available to us. Anyway I've asked another CU to double-check this, as mistakes are made occasionally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it was based on CheckUser evidence, along with the fact MickMacNee liked to edit transportation related topics as well. As far as the technical evidence is concerned, JagMoore was editing on the one and only IP MickMacNee and his socks ever edited along. In addition, they shared the same useragent. That said, I always welcome review. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nachteilig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sorry, but with no obvious lead I have to trouble you again, this guy has been making a nuisance of himself on the discussion page of two different Admins plus attacking the community with his word on his own talk page. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI; too much even for my ridiculous levels of AGF. I just blocked them both. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't show anything irregular. Good block though. Tiptoety ^talk 00:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been a long time since I've been seven or known someone who is seven, I only know the interrupting starfish knock-knock joke and that requires hands to tell. So instead, I offer a cup of tea and thanks for dealing with IEP socks. Danger High voltage! 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the cup of tea. It is currently 37 degrees Fahrenheit here, so something warm to drink is always nice. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on this. Did make me laugh that he redirected my page to "asshole". :D I think I am going to take that as a compliment.

In other news, that entire range was rangeblocked a few months back, I think by MuZemike, due to vandalism from this same user. Is there anyway you can do some range blocks to keep this guy out, please? Thanks. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without any other IPs, I have no idea what range I would need to block. You don't recall the range or the other IPs do you? Tiptoety ^talk 08:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Took a look back in history, hence the slight delay, and here is what I can provide. All of these are licensed to DAKTEL.com out of Carrington, North Dakota. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Those are from IP2Location for GeoLocating.

A semi-related bit of information, IP2Location, which is used in our "GeoLocate" links on the IP talkpage tabs, has started a "quota" (20 per day) for free users. We might want to think about finding another free GeoLocate service. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The /16 range has been blocked for 1 month. –MuZemike 08:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks Mike. On the GeoLocation links, this website would be a great alternative and it is free. :) Free is good. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just edit conflicted with you, I was about to post a link to that site as well. Tiptoety ^talk 08:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about great minds thinking alike tonight. :) Are you reading my mind? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, have you been able to encourage whoever can add that infosniper.net link to the IP talk page banners, so we can get GeoLocation back again? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sure it's just a template, and my guess is that you can edit it and replace the current link with the one for infosniper.net. Tiptoety ^talk 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent you an OTRS request. Thanks for any help. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but it seems User:47man4747 is still using User:76.211.237.25 to insert unsourced info into Hip Hop. I thought it would be proper to let you know since you blocked him/her. -199.173.225.33 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully what I posted here about the whole Jack Rose (guitarist) thing got blocked or you just deleted it and ignored it. Nonetheless, I will apologize for getting way, way too over-emotional and being a complete jerk. Esp. to someone who asks for "Knock, Knock" jokes on their talk page (I'm going to borrow that, if that's OK?) I hope it got blocked and you didn't read it. Rob and I just talked to Jack's widow and she said "play nice or don't play".

So attacking editors I would like to apologize for, but would also like to understand. In other words, Editor A comes along, writes article, most of it is wrong. There's a few references but not many (somehow when I don't have every single thing references, my articles get Speedy Deleted.) I try to correct things, but it's a very sore subject. So I leave some uncalled for comments. But that shouldn't mean my factual changes should be removed. Maybe I need to be removed, but not the real facts. Does this make sense? Because I'm confused. It seems like if bad Editor A creates or takes over an article, they get to rule with an iron fist, and factual changes can't be made.

1. What's the proper way to deal with bad editors? I mean, people who write articles, or take them over, but the info is just completely wrong? 2. Rob Vaughn, the one who played with Pelt 1997-1999, and who their CD Rob's Choice is named after, is standing behind me, making sure I'm not being a jerk. 3. Can he create an account, he's not sure if he has one, and access through the same IP address, since we just have one DSL router and fixed IP for the whole office.

Again, my sincere apologies. And Rob apologies as well. And says I should offer you a gift or something? I am a total jerk, and not into Bad Karma. So very, very sorry. :( — WinkJunior (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't want to be a WP:DIVA but after reading that article... it kinda burns a bit, y'know, realizing that I'm acting like a WP:DIVA. Reading that article? Looking in a mirror.

So sorry x 1000. I'm logging off and letting Rob V. create an account and try to address the Pelt / Jack Rose stuff. And I'll try to stay logged off until I can stop being a "diva". Sheesh, I am an idiot. Sincere apologies! — WinkJunior (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi WinkJunior. For starters, understand that I do not take lightly to people vandalizing my userpage and telling other editors to "fuck off." That said, I greatly appreciate that you have apologized and will let the past be the past. To answer your question, yes, there is a way to deal with "trouble" editors, specifically those that attempt to take over an article. Before I list what those options are, I want to make clear the incorrect ways of going about dealing with troubles users. Continually reverting them (unless it is clear vandalism) will get you blocked for edit warring and calling them names will get you blocked for incivility. The more appropriate way, would be to post a a noticeboard. One noticeboard that is likely to be able to help is WP:AN/I, that is where administrators deal with incidents at the request of editors/users. You might also be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Noticeboards, this provides you with a list of various places to request assistance.

And yes, Rob can create an account but before he does so make sure he reads our policy on conflict of interest. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the one year protection on Meriwether Lewis. Makes me wonder why people feel the need to do stupid stuff on articles. Mattchewbaca (meow) 08:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety ^talk 08:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Customized Excellent User Page Award
		Hi tiptoety, i really like your userpage… so here's this humble star (i hope you show it to your owl ;) - Benzband (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Azure+Dragon+of+the+East

May you take a look? Because I think User:Azure Dragon of the East is a clone of User:Calvin Marquess (blocked) due to his/her editing behaviors and habits.--AM ^(talk) 04:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as well as 22 Century (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Both are now blocked. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the autopatrolled status. I appreciate the vote of confidence. I hope to add articles on notable historic persons and events of the American Civil War and colonial America which have no current pages and to add information from reliable sources to articles that are stubs or start class and can be expanded. I have left a thank you with User:Alpha Quadrant as well. Donner60 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing, Tiptoety ^talk 05:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen your username around here quite often, and I thought you might be able to give me some advice. Ever since I restarted Wikipedia, I've liked fighting vandalism. However, most of the tools are reserved for rollback users. What would be some good milestones to reach if I want to gain this privilege? Jambobambo (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read over Wikipedia:Rollback feature, it will most likely answer your question. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since that's a whole load of useless junk, selective deletion is better than revdeletion here, especially for DENY purposes.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it will make any difference. Tiptoety ^talk 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This guy only wants attention. Leaving it as if it never happened is the best way to DENY, and it'll remove unnecessary clutter from the page history.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with DENY. I'm also familiar with this user who is a long term sock, and DENY will do nothing, heck they are probably reading this thread right now. That said, I see no harm in deleting the revisions. So,  Done. Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I've raised this at WP:RM so that consensus can be reached as to which title the article should be housed at. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tiptoety, I did anti vandalism work before, Then I was busy with wikifying, writing articles. And I have been using Huggle and other tools in other languages. I just want to work faster and save time. I can assure that I will utilize the right carefully. Thank you. -- aηsuмaη :) ^༽Ϟ 05:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Euclidthegreek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

We have an unblock request from Euclidthegreek, an editor you indefblocked in August 2009 following a string of bad joke articles and other shenanigans. Their first unblock request was unremarkable, and the user was admonished to stop socking and come back after a year, at which time their remorse might be more credible. It's now been 26 months, and we have a fresh unblock request - one that lists multiple sockpuppets. Given the length of time, I might be inclined to give this editor a shot, but for the socks. I posted a request of input at AN, and - if you have a moment - your input is welcome. Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied at AN. Than you for the note. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this and this IP's to be socks, but i'm not certain who the sockmaster is. Can you do a test please? Pass a Method talk 12:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the privacy policy, I can not link an IP address to a named user. That said, I went ahead and protected the article for a few days. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tiptoey, let me apologise for the tone of my remarks to you following my request for review of my block. As that (as far as I can recall) was the first time I had spoken to you, I regret the manner and tone of my replies, as I can see that you are civil and one of the better editors here. I am very sorry for the remarks I made to you and would have been better at that time to have taken some time out before attempting to resolve the situation. DMSBel (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMSBel. Thank you for the apology, it's much appreciated. That said, I understand that in the heat of the moment words can get thrown around and sometimes it is hard to keep your composure and as such I didn't take it personally. Anyways, happy editing. Tiptoety ^talk 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Tiptoey, and best to you with your editing.62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am not satisfied with the justification you have given for semi-protecting this article. Can you please review and, if there is one, provide a policy-based reason? Leaky Caldron 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection [3] Leaky Caldron 18:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I replied at AN/I. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would sooner discuss this here rather than ANI, if that's ok. I just didn't see the need for, or agree with, the citation "persistent sockpuppetry". There are 2, admittedly the same editor judging by the IP geo-locate, edits, and it is indeed possible to deduce who the master could be. However, unless I'm missing something else, I'm not seeing persistent behaviour and if there is a worry about abuse surely there should be a SPI, not just a casual approach by an editor to a Checkuser. How does any of the approach taken help to eliminate the problem? Leaky Caldron 11:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are processes like SPI does not necessarily mean they need to be used in every instance, especially given all I would have done is decline a CheckUser per the same reason I did here. The approach stops the IP socks from continuing to target that specific article. It was only for 3 days and I feel that the disruption to the article from doing so was minimal. Tiptoety ^talk 07:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I had a terrible packet loss (and irc would work quite weak) so I asked the oversight team via email, but actually irc "generic" requests (I mean those not addressed to a particular sysop) worked not so well in the past. Frankly, stating my request has been approved, I did my best to avoid any side-effect or overriding local community, considering there were several difficulties in having a quick response and, furthermore, that I didn't want to make that issue *so* public (but now, because of you, it is :/ ) I cannot understand the tone of your question (and, actually, the question itself, probably you already read my explanations, didn't you?). Regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So this baby seal walks into a club...Sorry, I am currently out of knock-knock jokes. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi you blocked User:SgtSquirts for ausing multiple accounts he/she is back using the name User:SgtSquirts1 and vandalising the same article History of the Special Air Service are you able to intervene again ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been taken care of. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you out the blue. JtV hit my talk page here and on Meta under two different accounts. He got blocked here, but his account on meta:User:Deskwiped remains unblocked. I'm not sure what the usual procedures are for requesting a vandal block on meta, but I noticed that you are an admin here and there. Can you do me a favor and block the account on meta? If you would prefer that I follow procedure on meta, whatever that may be, I can do that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Tiptoety, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, 2011 Virginia Tech shooting, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Virginia Tech shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting 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 good 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. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

65.189.246.48 (talk · contribs · block log) - A checkuserblock unblock request for your attention. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Replied. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have another OTRS photo on Commons. Could you process it? I just sent it to permission-commons and the subject line is "Polly Bemis House". Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - In the future, can you link to the file (in the email) and not just add the file as an attachment, that will assist me in locating it faster. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll put the commons url in. Tks. 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not directly about you, but about the Golden Glory logo placed on your page. --NellieBly (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As you were marginally involved in this dispute recently, please note that User:Lhb1239 has resumed his disruptive editing at Talk:Mad Men by removing legitimate discussion of improving the article -- and, ironically, has engaged in the same warning/templating behavior on my talkpage [4] [5] [6] [7] which he complained about as 'harassment'. I have reported this matter to WP:WQA#User removing article talkpage discussion. -El duderino (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And now he has filed a frivolous report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring which he even admits is to "make a point". El duderino (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No - I said YOU were trying to make a point with your edit warring behavior. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider re-semi-protecting America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 for a few months, it is still appears to be a target for those wanting to have some fun. Mtking ^(edits) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it be for right now, as I do not feel the vandalism rises to the level of protection. That said, if it picks up feel free to leave a request at WP:RFPP or drop me a note here. Just understand that I may not get back to you quickly. Tiptoety ^talk 07:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about proxies or Tor nodes, but I see from the block log that you've regularly blocked User:66.180.193.219 for being a Tor node. I just blocked the address for harassment of User:Cossde, but if that's still an open proxy, then perhaps it needs to be blocked longer? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that a Tor node still exists, as such I extended the block to 3 months. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well. Tiptoety ^talk 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

January 12, 2011??--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed - The silly template messed up the date. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 09:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety.

Arb Elen of the Roads recused themselves in the MF/Civility case [8] Leaky Caldron 09:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 06:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Chase me resign from arbcom?--Guerillero | My Talk 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see [9]. He officially steps down today. Either myself or another clerk will tend to that shortly. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if either you, or your fellow clerk, would police incivil personal attacks on the workshop page [10]. Many thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time; your fellow clerk responded. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on my part. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety - sorry to bother you, but when you have a minute would you mind removing my reviewer userright? I was just reminded of the subject from a thread on the village pump, and I thought it was probably about time that I got it removed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I didn't see a public explanation of why this name was chosen, and if this signifies a broadening of the scope of the inquiry. (My eyesight is poor, however.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It was chosen by the drafting Arbitrator and relayed to me on the clerks mailing list. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1019 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Clerk, per Risker's extension of time on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement there's a reasonable expectation now that the Evidence and Workshop pages will cease being edited. One of the parties to the case has [expressed concern] about these pages still being edited. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)