User talk:24.190.34.219/Archive 1

Sign
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did sign it, I simply had the signature on the next line.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Daisy Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Daisy Johnson was changed by 24.190.34.219 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-07-30T05:55:58+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sam & Max Beyond Time and Space, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sam & Max Beyond Time and Space was changed by 24.190.34.219 (u) (t) deleting 22765 characters on 2009-08-03T16:57:19+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * How about it's not vandalism, all those articles are being discussed to be merged into the main article, and the discussion wasn't finished. Cluebot had a false positive. How about you read the edit lists.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a violation of BLP if it's common knowledge and widely reported, which includes the fact that she created a sex tape.

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Domino mask. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about I haven't vandalized anything... and you need to stop jumping to conclusions and posting a warning two seconds after someone edits a page because maybe they are doing several edits and the information "removed" is being better organized to facilitate discussion.


 * And last warning... the previous "warning" wasn't vandalism but originated as a false positive from a bot. Someone had removed 5 tags from a page, and when I added them back it was seen as vandalism. This was discussed on the talk page.


 * So frankly, you need to stop talking out of your ass. Actually look at the pages and get the context before acting all high and mighty because you are completely wrong and quite frankly offensive.


 * If you look at the Domino Mask talk page, I was added a legitimate concern about the article and how it was to be improved. The listing of 5 image against wiki policies notices, all of which the images were removed, and the complaint was taken care of and a legitimate image added, was drowning out the legitimate concerns of the talk page. They were simply being organized and dated to the beginning of the talk page (which is why when I temporarily removed them I stated "temp edit"). Of course you didn't see that because you are a jackass who thinks he knows everything.


 * Stop being a Wiki nazi when all I've done is make legitimate edits.24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call removing all discussions from that talk page and replacing it with "temp" constructive. And please don't attack me it won't get you anywhere. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One, no discussions were removed. All that was removed were Bot notices, all of which had already been addressed by other users, and once again [temp] was an indication that the edits were being re-organized so as to not drown out the only actual user post on the discussion page (the one I just added) which was addressing an important concern of the article). You, jumped the gun, and reported vandalism in less than a minute before the user itself had time to assess and correct the situation. Additionally, you are pre-judging the user based on a previous warning which proved to be a misunderstanding based on a false positive from a Bot. Even if my words were "harsh" you yourself weren't entirely in the right.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SockPuppet Case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetfornow. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to respond to this, however am unable to at the directed link. I do not see why this IP address was blocked. From what I can see is that this IP was suspected of operating under multiple accounts. Someone believing that this IP address was also Sweetfornow. The thing is, by Wiki's own investigations Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive it was deemed unlikely that the IP was associated with Sweetfornow. Instead, it turned up that the IP was associated with Flygongengar (which it is). However, I don't see where the accused abuse of multiple accounts comes in; as it was deemed not to be Sweetfornow, and Flygongengar never posted in any of the accused edits for this case. Since both the IP and Flygongengar did not both post on the issue there was no abuse. Neither is the fact that their is an account associated with the IP. Since this is a shared computer, I can not stay permanently logged into Wikipedia. When making minor edits (or making edits through a mobile type device) it's occasionally a hassle to log in so they are done and it registers the IP. Any major edit would require me to log in anyway.


 * The only evidence I could see for the ban is a misunderstanding thinking both Sweetfornow and the IP was the same user. In which case, since both posted on the same article it would be an abuse. However your own investigation said this was unlikely (and in fact Sweetfornow isn't this user). In fact, all the archived problems in the investigation are against Sweetfornow, NOT the IP and NOT Flygongengar. Once again, your own investigation said the IP and FLygongengar were not Sweetfornow. So if you could please explain where the abuse was?24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reading below. The IP made personal attacks, blanked article talk pages and contributed to an edit war.--Crossmr (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond individually to Crossmr, as you appear to have presented the evidence. Your first section "edits to famous for being famous", has one edit by the IP, no edits by Flygongenger, and the rest of the edits are by Sweetfornow. Once again, the own investigation said the IP was not Sweetfornow, so there wasn't 4 reverts by the user. There was one, which is not an edit war. The second section, once again, 1 charge towards the IP, 2 against Sweetfornow, as the case determined the IP was NOT Sweetfornow, this isn't an issue of abusing multiple accounts. Next section, violations against Sweetfornow. AGAIN, the IP was determined not to be Sweetfornow, so that whole section is irrelevant. The personal attack is one instance, already apologized for (within a half hour of making), and based on a misunderstanding from a false positive from a Bot. Additionally, the post in question was a response not an unwarranted random post. Therefor, your entire case seems to be directed at Sweetfornow which once again, was shown to NOT be the IP or Flygongengar.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. It didn't contribute to an edit war. If you look at the history for the page famous for being famous. It made one edit (not multiple; all the subsequent edits were made by Sweetfornow, which Wiki's own investigation showed was not the IP or Flygongengar). Additionally, the edit was constructive, as one the IP not knowing the history of the page did the edit in good faith, and two, the information that the IP added is now still in the article just with a proper citation (therefore it was wrong to have been removed in the first place, and only needed an cite tag).


 * Two, there is only one in instance of personal attacks (once again remind you that the IP is NOT Sweetfornow, as Wiki's own investigation said). The personal attack was made in response to a warning which was in fact based on a misunderstanding from a false positive reported by a Bot. Additionally, if you check the affected user's talk page, you'd see that within the half hour the IP removed the attack and issued an apology.


 * Finally, the blanking of article talk pages. There are two instances, the first is of the IP's own talk page. Someone posted a comment for the IP user, he read it and deleted it. It's not against wiki policy to blank your own talk page, nor is it required to respond to messages on a talk page as users sometimes move the discussion to the article in question or the poster's page. Additionally, the message in question was already taken care of by the time it was read, so therefor did not warrant discussion. The second was in one article, which once again if you happened to go to the users involved with that, you'd see was a misunderstanding, The talk page of that article was only Wiki bot notices of images being removed (no actual user comments were removed), all of which were taken care of. Instead, when adding a legitimate concern how to improve the article (go look at the talk page yourself), the bot stamps were accidentally removed and then restored/reported as vandalism in less than a minute of the post (i.e. before one even has time to notice the mistake occurred).


 * I repeat, almost all the "evidence" provided and all the attacks were directed at Sweetfornow, NOT the IP and NOT Flygongengar. As the IP was proved to not be Sweetfornow, there really wasn't a reason for the block. Finally, if you look at Flygongengar's history, you'd see he's made a number of substantial and beneficial contributions, to such pages as World of Monkey Island, Template:Tarot Cards, Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade, etc. It seems that most of this punishment is directed at Sweetfornow, which hate to repeat myself, was shown not to be the IP or Flygongengar. The Sockpuppet account charge isn't valid as it's only one account (Flygongengar) and that accounts IP. The edit war charge isn't valid as the war was done by Sweetfornow, not the IP and not Flygongengar. The personal attack was based on a misunderstanding, was apologized for, happened once, AND was in repsonse to another user's post (not out of nowhere), which makes the verdict seem overly harsh and unwarranted.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, I would like to add, that the whole case and "trial" occurred in a short time span, without any notification to the user (or if there was, not early enough notification for the user to notice the warning). Therefor was I not only unaware of the proceedings, but had no opportunity to defend myself while it was going on. This, in itself seems wrong, especially seeing as there's a section in the notes "Comments by accused parties", and the case shouldn't have been closed until the user had an opportunity to respond.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Sweetfornow was rightfully blocked, as that account is unrelated to this IP or Flygongengar, there is no reason why those two were blocked.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Monkey island edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page World of Monkey Island has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Pakaran 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the game, and won't further revert your edits. However, as you're recently blocked, be aware that others will be watching your contributions, and if information you add is false, they'll very likely catch it. -- Pakaran 18:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's a good thing it isn't false then; if you look you'd see I've been a long time contributor to that page. The multiple edits were do to the amount of information and I was editing individual sections (to make it easier to me) than the whole page at once. Also the block was added and then removed by an admin the next day. It was based on a false accusation.24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Glycon
Four months ago, someone from this IP address was asking about the pronunciation of "Glycon". In case you have given up on getting an answer and do not have the page on a watchlist, please note that I have replied to this request. :) -Stelio (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Silver Age comics
I'm probably going to undo all your edits. Can you comment at my talk page before I do? Thanks. Just edit my talk page. There will be a link after my name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you would undo all my edits, or do you just mean the one edit I made in that article, in which all I did was alter a sentence that had confusing grammar/syntax? Anyway, it was done in good faith, so if you feel the article is better served without it, then by all means do so and I apologize.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I did revert your edit. I thought you were a different anonymous user, who I am going to revert.  I hate reverting anons (as we call them), but everything in that article has an associated reference, so it can't be changed easily.  I'm really sorry, and if you want to discuss how to get rid of the "interugnum" (sp) thing, I'm all ears.  Sorry again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)