User talk:2help

DicksForSale
I was just going to report this user, but, thanks for reporting. I've been keeping a close eye on this user since he/she started vandalizing Linux. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, see you around! 2help (message me) 05:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've requesting protection of the talk page at WP:RFPP due to the user abusing his/her own talk page while blocked. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, 2help (message me) 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been protected, by revoking talk page access on the account. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hello. The edit you reverted was actually directed at me. I'm currently (unfortunately) involved in a dispute with another editor who's been leaving messages on most of my IP addresses. I'm not using anonymizers or anything. It's just that my ISP at home, and my school, have mostly dynamic addresses (I say 'mostly', because the page you reverted has an address that will mostly stick to that computer unless network settings changes, irrespective of who's sitting at that computer). I'm currently the target of what I believe to be harrassment (though I concede that some might disagree). Since he can't keep the (BLP-violating) changes he wanted in an article, and since he can't follow through on his idle threats of having me blocked, he's instead opted for leaving these "warnings" on as many of my addresses as he could. (I can't think of why, since the only reason I can even begin to think of is that he knows it irks me that the next person with that address might be pestered by them). There's really no question that they're addressed to me, since he's stretched his "warnings" across all pages (and even included a link from at least one to another right on the page). Though I know you had the absolute best of intentions, and are operating only good faith, I'd request that you not interfere in what is clearly a private matter. The funny thing is, the only thing I'm looking for is to simply handle messages addressed to me as being addressed to me, and to prevent other people from being needlessly caught into this stupid argument. I intend to remove it again, since it's intended for me. However, like I said, I know that you have the best of intentions, so if you revert me again, I won't push the matter further with you. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the message. I understand your concerns.  I responded to your post on WP:ANI with the suggestion of creating an account, which would solve this dynamic-IP issue.  It is my understanding that an IP can edit his/her own talk page mercilessly, but not that of others.  Therefore, unless I'm wrong, I would recommend not editing other IP's, even if you claim the messages are posted for you, until WP:ANI "authorizes" you to do so, or reaches another conclusion.  Let me know what you think, 2help (message me) 05:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry about that. I hadn't realized that you already commented in the AN/I thread.
 * To be honest, I used to have an account. I got too fed up with politics and such that I left... wow... years ago? (in good-standing, mind you)
 * The only thing I bother with anymore are BLP and copyright issues. (For some reason, it irks me when someone plagiarizes, or takes a corporate logo and claims to have made it himself)
 * I can certainly understand your reasoning. I suppose my take on it would be this:
 * Even if one doesn't want to conclude that I'm the 'same person'. He clearly thinks that I am, and clearly addressed all of those messages to me. (For example, in addition to the fact that he's stretched "warnings" across pages, he also linked one of my primus IPs directly to the page for my Brock (university) IP. He can hardly even imply that those two are different people if he's going to link one to the other, right?)
 * I suppose that isn't definitive proof that this IP is the same, in spite of being nearly identical to the other Primus one (and, trust me, not many people are still using dial-up with primus!), but I can access that Brock IP one more time tomorrow, if that would lay this issue of identity to rest.
 * Do you think that'd be enough? If I were to use that IP address to confirm that I'm the same person? He admits that 209.90.135.121 and 139.57.101.134 are the same person (by virtue of the link), so if I post again under that Brock IP tomorrow, that'll do it, right? 209.90.134.60 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmmm... I'm actually not sure if there is a precedent for this. My immediate guess would be that 'linking' these IP addresses to one person would not be allowed, by arguing that that is what usernames are for.  But you can always ask at the WP:ANI thread to see what more experienced users say.  2help (message me) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would beg the question of whether or not he could then possibly be allowed to treat all the IP addresses as the same person. (It just seems like an all-or-nothing thing to me) Failing that, since the one thing I don't think is in dispute is that these are clearly dynamic IPs, and the warnings will definitely go to people other than intended (well, like I said, I can re-delete the one on the Brock IP tomorrow anyways), could that be a justification for an uninvolved party (you seem relatively uninvolved; certainly neutral) to remove it (assuming it gets re-added, that is)? I'd really prefer to not have to address this from a the-warnings-were-insane-to-begin-with perspective, as I'm so tired of arguing over how I'm supposed to phrase the fact that someone's ignoring BLP. On a side note, I really have to say that I appreciate how polite and respectful you've been. One thing I've noticed since editing strictly anonymously is that, um, people tend to treat anonymous IPs like crap a lot. :D It's refreshing (and encouraging) to be treated like anyone else. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. Regarding your sincere worry about other users seeing the warnings, the last paragraph on the Brock University disclaimer (in the talk page) addresses the possibility of receiving irrelevant comments and warnings there, so I believe that is taken care of.  Was the other editor at fault by making multiple postings and linking different IPs?  I would instinctively say yes, but I'd rather let WP:ANI reach a consensus before I remove the content (if it gets re-added).


 * And thank you for your complements! I strive to be polite, so I appreciate the recognition. 2help (message me) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept your desire to let them handle it. As for the notice, I realize that those notices are there, but at the same time... well...
 * If there were any legitimate and honest attempt to correct a behaviour (even if that attempt to correct was wrong), it'd be different. But, in this case, he knows full well that I've seen the message. And he's explicitly acknowledged that it's me in the AN/I thread, so I really can't understand any logic with leaving the warnings on different pages.
 * Ah well, I suppose we'll see what happens, eh? 209.90.134.60 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Also, that's my cue to go to sleep.  I will take a look at the case tomorrow, have a good night, 2help (message me) 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Allo. Just a follow-up: Thanks again for being a sounding board. (oh, and, see? I really am me! :) ) I don't think they're going to be re-added, which is all I really needed in the first place. However, I did find one thing kinda funny (I mean, offensive, yes. not funny at all). Know how I've been trying to establish that I'm the same person? And that I wanted the different IPs to be treated as the same person (me)? Well, apparently, by doing so, I was actually using "multiple IPs as a way to avoid accountability"! I'm a diabolical genius, aren't I? Heh. Anyways, today's the last day I'll be on this IP (someone else is getting this computer next week), so this is my final goodbye, and thank you. :) 139.57.101.134 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, well thankfully an agreement seems to have been reached; although accusations were thrown around. Hopefully we can get all get past it and continue to contribute here.  See you around, 2help (message me) 22:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bigrupp
Do you have rollback? If yes, could you undo some more edits by User:Bigrupp? --Una Smith (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I do and yes I will. Thanks for the message, and feel free to do it yourself next time, even if you have to do it manually (without rollback).  Take care, 2help (message me) 22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take a look at it. 2help (message me) 04:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob M. Appel
Article was non-notable. It reads like a CV. As profs are routinely deleted, a pseudo-prof and one-play playwright cannot be somehow more notable. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.159.33 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there! First of all, sorry I reverted your edit, I shouldn't have done that (I didn't realize you wrote that in the talk page).  I have undone my edit.
 * Regarding the article itself, I think the article looks fine and he is notable already, given he has some 90 short stories published in literary journals. However, if you feel otherwise, you can nominate the article for deletion through WP:AfD, or simply place the text:  at the top of the page.  This will tag it as written like a resume.  Let me know if you have any questions. 2help (message me) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, tried the CV thing, but that seems to add a copyright notice...--24.200.159.33 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Silly me. It should be , all caps. Sorry about that. 2help (message me) 07:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

153d Command and Control Squadron
Thanks for the revert on the 153 CACS page. Your message on the IP talk page was good - I pinged the IP address and the host name was a bit suspicious. It originated from FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, the home of the 153 CACS. I don't know if this was condoned by corporate headquarters (i.e. 153 CACS leadership) or if the writer was a unit member. But good catch! TDRSS (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, that is interesting. 2help (message me) 03:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

World Cup qualification
I use a spreadsheet to keep things organized, but it's mostly manual work - just look at the different combinations and see what is still possible. For instance, one I'm working on right now for CONMEBOL: If Chile loses out, Brazil and Paraguay will be ahead. Ecuador will gain three points in the final round to get to 26, so they need at least a draw against Uruguay to catch Chile (if there's a possible tie, no one's clinched anything since goal difference is the first tiebreaker and they could theoretically lose 50-0 in their remaining games). We'll assume Venezuela beats Brazil (worst-case scenario for Chile, as Brazil's already ahead and Venezuela can catch them with two wins). Argentina and Uruguay play each other in the last round, and both need two wins to catch Chile, so only one can do so. If Uruguay does, that means Ecuador is also unable to catch them (since they would lose in round 17). So a Uruguay win means that either they or Argentina (but not both) can catch Chile (assuming that Chile loses both games), Ecuador cannot catch them, and Venezuela can if they win both games. Thus, a Uruguay win plus a Venezuela loss or draw is sufficient for Chile to qualify, because at most one more team can catch them and they cannot finish lower than fourth. If Uruguay do not win, they're unable to catch Chile but Ecuador can catch up. Argentina and Venezuela can catch up as well if they win, so if Ecuador gets at least a draw against Uruguay, both Argentina and Venezuela must lose or draw in order for Chile to guarantee qualification despite a loss. PiGuy314 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, well you clearly seem to have it under control. Keep up the great work and thanks for the info, 2help (message me) 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Blackout
I didn't make the edit you refer to. I have no idea what the Northeast Blackout is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.162.9 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone editing from the IP address you are currently using did in 2009. Please see your talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)