User talk:Barneca/Archive 7

User welcome
I think that your welcome message to User talk:Billsouse is quite probably the nicest I have seen. Good job. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks Eldereft. Always nice to start Monday morning with a compliment.  I have that welcome template at user:barneca/temps/uw-test1ip and user:barneca/temps/uw-test1ac.  Feel free to steal them if you'd like (you'll have to play with them a little, as I hard coded my signature and a timestamp into them). --barneca (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Barneca. Having seen those templates I think I might steal them too. A lot of the already-available ones don't allow for enough possibilities about what the target was doing, in my opinion. Good work! Olaf Davis | Talk 10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I've never archived a noticeboard discussion before. In this case, I felt compelled to do it because the originator requested an archival.  Enigma  message 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, different places (Afd, SPP, ANI) archive things differently, and inconsistenly. I only know this because I did it wrong before and got yelled at, so now I try to fix it when I see it.  to be clear, I have no problems with the actual decision to archive. --barneca (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Security Tips
I assume Graham redirected it because it was linked, but I adjusted all links to point to NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Helpful Hints, so the redirect is obsolete. Dorftrottel (criticise) 15:28, May 6, 2008
 * If I interpreted his restore comment right, he was keeping it so as not to lose the contribution history. If the page is still there in a few hours, I'll ask him if he still feels that way; I need to run right now. --barneca (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Graham does, indeed, still disagree with the deletion (see his talk page if you're curious). I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not going to delete it as uncontested housekeeping if he still feels that way.  If you really want to, you can discuss further with him, or I guess MfD it, or something. --barneca (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying, and also for notifying me. Dorftrottel (talk) 04:08, May 7, 2008

An old pal wearing a wooly handcovering
Since you closed Articles for deletion/Ronald Bongo, thought you might want to take a look at this wooly fellow User:Chopped Lamb whose edits and language are hauntingly familiar. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Contributed at the WP:SSP case; chickening out, calling myself "involved", and not blocking myself. Also, following the new account's edit history lead me to User:Jglogau‎, who appears to be the anti-JRS-SEC; he started a spam version of Rob Bongo last year, and among other things, seems to have article creation problems himself.  If those two ever met, there would be some kind of matter/anti-matter reaction. --barneca (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, can't help but note this edit summary: . Oh noes! NPOV-pushing! :)  --barneca (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Doppelganger
Quite simple. I deleted the first version of the "Userpage" today and at the time did a check for the contributions and deleted contributions to see what else was afoot. There was only one deleted contribution which was the cause of the block. Since I assumed that the current incident would attract more eyes on the matter I asked for that particular edit to be oversighted as it would have put someone at risk. I only mentioned it to prove without doubt that there is no connection between the two. Something that the current logs and records no longer can show. Agathoclea (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA Issues
Crap, apologies. (Somewhat sad that I manage to create a BLP issue by trying to avoid one). Would a RFO mess with anything on RfA? -- B figura (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And would an RFO be overkill here? (It'd be more than one, since there are issues on the RfA page and subpage). -- B figura (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll put in for the RFO. -- B figura (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, RfO in. -- B figura (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ack!
Now what? Dloh  cierekim'''  03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just raised it at WT:RFA. --barneca (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Schools online
Hi, I saw your query at AN about an online version of Wikipedia for Schools, I have replied there but it's a busy thread, so in case you missed it, the link is. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Duncan. I got wrapped up in something else and completely forgot about that thread. --barneca (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA talk discussion
The reason that you "bother" is because it was probably quite prudent to inform the RfA community of the events surrounding the snow close of Dell's RfA. I thought it was very good that you started that thread to let people discuss to the extent that it was. I requested that it be marked "resolved" because of 2 reasons: 1, it seemed to be agreed that a SNOW close was accurate regardless of the circumstances and 2: Dell was engaging just about everyone in a harassing way (he was subsequently blocked). Anyways, just posting here to let you know I thought the thread was worthwhile. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gwyand. Just disappointing to see someone who I tried to go out of my way to help, react like that.  I guess looking gullible isn't the end of the world. --barneca (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, her actions were dissapointing, but hindsight is 20/20. If it was just a typical inexperienced editor, your thread may have gone a long way in encouraging them to properly prepare for their next RfA. Also, talking about hindsight, seeing Dell's use of the word "colored" on her talk page makes me think that original opposes over racist edits were valid. Oh well. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Barneca. Nope, haven't heard anything, oddly enough. And I concur with you: I wish I had invested my time in a more worthwhile cause. -- B figura (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

 * Aw, thanks Mike. I needed that. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and thank you. I'm glad that helped. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim'''  19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This
diff made me laugh out loud, Barn. Out Loud. Anywho...back to my watchlist. control+F5.... Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I managed to go almost 2 hours that time. I must have it beat. Whew, good to have that monkey off my back, that was easier than i thought it would be.  Now just a quick check of my watchlist, and I'll log off again.  Ctrl-F5.  Ctrl-F5.  Ctrl-F5.  Ctrl-F5.... --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Nicoleta Sofronie
Good job on this -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we'll see if it takes. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Formatting at AN/I
I noticed you edited my post to 'remove transclusions'. Is using those templates not acceptable? I think it more convenient to give a direct link to a user's talk and contribs. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I usually don't edit other people's stuff, and probably should have dropped you a note about it. Sorry.  I got rid of the transclusions because that puts a copy of whatever was on their user page on the ANI page; someone put a sockpuppet notice on one of the user pages, and transcluding that on ANI, put the ANI page into the category of suspected sock puppets, and copied the big notice onto ANI as well.


 * You did:
 * I did: user:JohnSmith
 * What you probably wanted to do was:


 * I'm not sure I explained that well, so let me know if it isn't unclear. --barneca (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so there's nothing wrong with the template. I see what I did, thanks. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts (regarding card games)
Thanks for you stepping about recent edits to the Card game article, and attempting some constructive engagement with this editor (i.e. User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja, User:Oana Ban, User:Eremia, and others such as User:Dakota Blue Richards (I think)). I've tried to do some of that too. I was wondering if it's appropriate to start a list of sock puppets to keep track of the accounts that have been created and keep a record of the activity. I don't know which one might be considered the "master" but I think the Dakota Blue Richards account was the first one create. I'm not trying to get this person "in trouble", but thought that having some more formal record of what's going on might be warranted. Of course I'm not an admin, so what do I know? :) --Craw-daddy | T | 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a list at User:Barneca/watch/bvr. That way, I can use "Related changes" to see, at a glance, if any of the user pages or articles I have listed there have been vandalized.  You're welcome to add information to that page if you think it will help, and of course help keep an eye on those pages if you want.
 * If they keep up the disruption, I plan to ask a Checkuser to see if we could do a rangeblock hardblock without cutting too many legitimate users out. From a message they left on one of their accounts, this could (if they are telling the truth) be a kid in France, so a rangeblock might not be that much of an inconvenience to legitimate editors.  Or, better yet, they'll stop disrupting and be constructive (although I don't see much chance of their desire to see game changed to sport getting much support in any content resolution). --barneca (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added that page to my watchlist (so that I can find it easily), and if I encounter appropriate incidents I'll add them there. Thanks again for your participation here.  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, hope it eases up. --barneca (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

range protection
I noticed your comment favoring something I have been thinking about: range protection. Semi-protection is an ugly answer ... unless we decide to block anonymous editing completely, it just doesn't really fit with anything, and general blocking doesn't work once it gets much bigger than a /16. What I would like is to be able to protect an article with a group of CIDR ranges, and have that block be effective against IPs within that range and registered editors within that range whose account was created after the block was put in place. That last bit would have to be capable of being overriden by an admin (basically a "subject to IP restriction" flag on the account). Has there been any discussion of this in the past that you could point me at?Kww (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The first part (ignoring the account creation bit) I brought up once at WP:VPT, I really can't remember when.  I'd try to find a link, but it isn't really worth it; if memory serves, one person commented that they didn't think you could do that, and one didn't understand why it would be useful: basically, a kinder version of "just semiprotect the article, you dope".  No one else commented in the 7 days the thread was alive.  It's possible someone has brought this up before, to be honest I didn't look.
 * As to your second bit, that hadn't occured to me, and I suspect that (a) it would make it a much more useful option, and (b) would be a lot harder to achieve. In a perfect world, it would work that way.  But I'd settle for range protection without it, as better than nothing and better than now, if the account creation part wasn't feasible.
 * Things like this seem, to me, to be Catch-22's. If you bring it up, usually people say "file a Bugzilla request".  But I don't think Bugzilla requests are acted on unless you can demonstrate a widespread agreeement that it would be useful.  I'd certainly support the idea if you bring it up again.  Not sure where the best place to have the discussion is.  Maybe WP:VPT again, but this time push it a little if no one comments? --barneca (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: . --barneca (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to chime in here.Kww (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Back and could use your help
barneca Greetings my friend. I am back, after a long period of illness, family illness, and assorted real world issues. I am going to post an article this week, and would be very grateful if I could solicit your help with any formatting problems. (As you know, I am a lot better on writing than I am on formatting!) I will understand if you cannot, between real world demands and the vastly increased demands on you after your election. (Congratulations, by the way, a better and fairer admin has not been elected!) JohninMaryland (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi John,
 * Glad you're back. As long as there is no real rush, I'd be happy to take a look when you post it.  Assuming I can scrounge the willpower, I'm trying to be on-wiki a lot less this month, but I'll still have time for stuff like this.  Just let me know.  And, thanks for the kind words. --barneca (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * barneca Hi again my friend. NO rush.  I will let you know when I post - it was one I was working on before the sky fell in, and I should finish this week.  I just want to make sure I don't inadvertantly link to the wrong site, or any of the other rather odd things I have managed in the past!  THANKS, and again, congrats, you earned the mop, and it is good to see good things happen for good people...JohninMaryland (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai


Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Have a nice day ! --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too! --barneca (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eremia !
I need only 3 three accounts, Eremia , Alexandra Eremia , and Parslow ! I finish vandalism, I will TRY for discussions , and If Parslow don't exists , I will create it ! Thanks ! It was valable only for all the wikis, excepted , in French wiki ! But I am not perfect ! I can have 3 accounts ! —Preceding comment was added at 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already responded on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Barneca.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I wanted to especially thank you for taking part in the post discussion crat chat. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brittney Skye
Drat, you beat me to it. I saw the edit on recent history and it just looked a little odd. Then I see that it's a porn star, now being listed as a dead porn star. By the time I'd figred that out and double checked for a pulse you had beaten me to it. At least now I can say that I've gone to an adult website for research reasons. o_O --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed several edits to the article scroll by on recent changes; looked, and figured a porn star would have had fans that would have noticed she'd been dead for a year. And yeah, if anyone asks, it was "official business". --barneca (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force
Barneca, I don't think that you ever understood what the issue is about at centrifugal force. Anome has been consistently misrepresenting the situation and claiming that it is about a fringe viewpoint.

It is not. There are two aspects to centrifugal force. There is the centrifugal force associated with actual rotation. There is also an artificat associated with viewing a stationary situation from a rotating frame of reference.

Any attempts to mention the cause and effect aspects associated with actual rotation are being suppressed. The group controlling the article have wanted to focus on the artifact aspect as being the general situation.

Anome never knew what the argument was about. He set about to appease the majority. He has now turned vindictive because his attempts to deceive have not been running as smoothly as he would have liked.

His recent block was totally wrong because the edit in question broke no rules and wasn't even part of the controversy.

You are totally wrong to endorse Anome's block. 118.175.84.92 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not use your IP address to evade your block. --barneca (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, was that a way of saying that you don't really want to look at the truth of the situation?119.42.64.217 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was a way of saying Do not use your IP address to evade your block. --barneca (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, the block was unlawful. It doesn't matter how many administrators sided with Anome. The block was unlawful. And now you are trying to disrupt discussions on the talk pages by deleting stuff on the talk pages. That is clearly against the rules. When somebody asks a question, they should have the common courtesy to listen to the answer without having somebody else going in and deleting the answer.

When you do an unlawful block, you lose all respect for the system. 118.173.15.142 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GA
Yeah, GA was fun... Rracecarr (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Societyfinalclubs
Looking at the talk page, it appears that more than one of us was working on the AIV report for. As I generally follow a 1RR for admins, I wanted to drop you a note explaining my research and subsequent actions. Based on the 3RR warning for Talk:Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent that was issued to this editor at 19:21 and their continued blanking of the page at 19:36 and 20:25, I blocked the editor for 12 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I understand, and was very tempted to do the same myself, until thinking of my alternate solution that I put on the talk page. But, we edit conflicted.  The question now is whether to speedy the article, or leave it for them to return to when the block expires.  Do you have a problem if I userfy it?  Based on last year's AfD, and the complete absence of any non-Wikipedia Google hits, I have a strong hunch this is a  hoax.  --barneca (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am willing to defer to your extension of good faith and not object to an early unblock, the editor's most recent messages do not reassure me that they understand either the importance or the ramifications of the three-revert rule. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, it's starting to look like windmill tilting on Prashanth's part, and mine too. Plus, I'm not even 100% convinced this isn't a hoax, I'm only userfying because I can't prove it, and if it isn't a hoax, deleting it as one would be poor form.  I'm going to wait to see how they respond to my newer suggestion, but per your comment above, I may lift it early if it seems they're going to try to edit quietly. --barneca (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense I hope with the earlier disagreements. All in good faith. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, none at all, being unjaded enough to AGF is always a good character trait. If you haven't seen it already, they have returned as User:65.150.33.24 to request a speedy, which I've done.  --barneca (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted and thanks. Off for the day!Prashanthns (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. --barneca (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your research looks quite good to me. I pride myself on being an even tempered, easy-going admin (while other admins go for the 24- or 31-hour block, if I think the project will be adequately protected, I will generally give a first-time offender just a 12-hour block), however my patience for and tolerance of this editor's obvious shenanigans is getting pretty thin.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not societfinalclubs, I have a history of contrubutions to the Theta Nu Epsilon talk page-which you can check for yourself.Jonesbig (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean you aren't the same person. I'm quite confident you are.  Now write your stupid article, and leave me alone.  I spent an hour trying to help you tonight, and this is the thanks I get. --barneca (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying we are the same person?Jonesbig (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not an idiot. --barneca (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just seeing the sockpuppetry evidence presented by you! Impressive work. I am perhaps partly to blame for my earlier defense of the user! I am very disappointed by his later behavior which I followed. Dont want to blame my poor judgement cos that will be going too far, but hmpf...I was really thinking they were a good editor, save for that small issue of 3RR. :( Prashanthns (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if saw Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs yet, but it appears that someone beat you to the punch ... --Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I must say I was quite confused when I tried to create the Checkuser page; For a second, I couldn't figure out HOW ON EARTH the software knew to populate it with usernames from the SSP! (cut me some slack, I'm very sleepy). --barneca (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think is another lost sock ... ?  --Kralizec! (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My gut instinct says yes, but I haven't had a chance to assemble any evidence, and I'm really hoping the Checkuser comes thru and identifies all of them. I purposely left out any accounts I wasn't very, very sure of.  Looking at the history of that article, I think a majority of the redlinked usernames may be related.  The AFD's and ANI report from last year seem to show a very determined hoaxer, I wouldn't be surprised if it was going on a long time.  I'm also concerned about other possible hoaxes created by this person.  But at least one or two of the articles created by SFC seem to have legit references, so it isn't all 100% hoax. complicated. Ick. --barneca (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had a chance to review all their contributions, I take that back; Mctrain/Societyfinalclubs had several tells, and Cornell1890 shows none of them. The Checkuser doesn't list him, and there's no reason to think Mctrain was running some Checkuser-susceptible, and other Checuser-immune, puppets.  Mctrain had socks that were all arguing with each other, so it made me suspicious of people who'd done nothing wrong; I'm glad I followed my instinct in the SSP report not to include people I wasn't sure about!
 * I don't think you have publicly accused him of that anywhere, but if you did, you might want to retract it. Societyfinalclubs sent him a condolence note, so I might have missed where Cornell was lumped in with them, or it might have been Mctrain yanking our chain some more. --barneca (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up! My above query was much like your gut instinct: an early feeling formed before either of us had time to fully investigate the issue.  Since your talk page is the only one I wondered out loud about it, my guess is that Mctrain was just stirring up the pot in an attempt to cover up his own trail of deception.  I wish there were an easier way to deal with sock issues like this ... one wonders how much time we wasted on this.  Regardless, kudos to you sir for your hard work!  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and kudos to you as well. Wonder how long until he comes back? --barneca (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of newly registered editors at is enough to make my head spin.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for fun
I am not inserting my name for fun. This is a serious matter.

Why are people making it so hard to write for Wikipedia. I am on the verge of quitting even before writing my first article.

Without even looking, I see 2 users abusing the name of doctor. This is why I seek some sort of verification before I write. OK, people say that an IP is not proof. But my IP is so specific that any checkuser can say that I am likely to be a doctor or am writing from a medical office and not a prison, drug company, school, etc. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly easy to edit Wikipedia. Just start editing Wikipedia. Worry about your Wikipedigree, not your medical pedigree.  joshschr  ( Talk  |  contribs ) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eremia !
Finally, I need 2 accounts , but only 2 ! Eremia and Alexandra Eremia ! I can use the both ! I have Eremia but, can you unblock Alexandra Eremia , just ONE ! With 1, this is so diffcult ! With 2, this is more easy ! Eremia (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Roger Parslow

Eremia - Edit 174 !
Yes, Aliena Kvacha is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes, Roger Parslow is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes, Nastasija Marachkovaskaja is blocked indefinit'ly ! Yes, Dakota Blue Richards is blocked indefinit'ly ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eremia (talk • contribs) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i would like to have 2 accounts !
becase i love having 2 or 3 accounts, and i like the name " eremia " , and " alexandra eremia " , and " alexandra " ! if i loose a account, i have the another ! with 1, i write on a subject , with the second , i create some page ! and i would like include card games in the sports, and i d'like to put the article and the categori in category " sports " ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eremia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns
You have blocked Mctrain which is a legitimate account with the Chicago Public Library. I believe that there may be cross-over between legitimate users and non-legigimate users, or possibly, non-legitimates signing in on legitimate accounts. FYI the IP's you narrowed are shared accounts with the Chicago Public Library. I have posted to tell all Wikipedia users to create accounts on their own personal computers. Mctrain's focus is European history and architecture, not collegiate subject matter. Will you also please post this message on the Barbaro family page so there is no confusion with legitimacy. Thank you very muchGeniejargon (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mctrain, please see the message I left you at User talk:Geniejargon. --barneca (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is turing into top shelf Comedy Gold! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a laugh a minute. Until you have to sort thru all the crap to see how much damage they've done in the last year: User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs / User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Page1. --barneca (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Barneca. These guys (or this guy)—i.e., the Tiki-two/Thost/F550/Save venice/Mctrain complex—have made me (and other users) waste a good deal of time dealing with their activities since I first became aware of them through my participation in Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club. In the next couple of weeks, I hope to begin undoing some of the fantasy they've inserted in Barbaro family and related articles. For now, I'd just like to thank you for getting a handle on the situation and making everyone else's life a little easier. (By the way, their signature move is attempting to blank any mention of their activities, or other users' concerns about the information their previous incarnations have added to articles, on article talk pages.) Deor (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied via email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneca (talk • contribs)

What should I use then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam1213/warn <-- thats what i have been using

What should I use to warn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Personalinformation (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a minute to look into that; it seems to be acting up. I'll reply on your talk page in a little while. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Praise for Patience
I would like to praise you for the patience you have shown in handling the user Eremia and all the related sockpuppets. Your efforts may seem futile to you in hindsight, but I would like you to know that there are users around who notice and appreciate the kind of effort you have expended in trying to help and handle users like that. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. Short version: Thanks! --barneca (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thank you for the cookie! :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block
I would like to thank you for blocking User:Whitemistert. As one who is endlessly frustrated by the stupidity of vandals, & frankly confused by their motivation, I am deeply satisfied when one of them gets shut out. Thank you. (OK, I'm not showing the nicest side; I don't think vandals are entitled to the same treatment {as you could guess by my userpage}, & I'm a natural born grouch anyhow. =) ) Trekphiler (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying on their talk. --barneca (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No sweat the delay. Just wanted to say it. (Actually, I didn't care if you replied or not. :)) Trekphiler (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ddduh....removing beans from my nose
...just a note to tell you that I fell for that line. :)Prashanthns (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk --barneca (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Galápagos Islands task force
Hi Barneca. In view of your significant contributions to the article Galápagos Islands, I thought that you might be interested in visiting the new task force, Galápagos Islands task force. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey!!
Do you happen to be online at the moment?  D u s t i complain/compliment 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thread continued on Dusti's talk page: User talk:Dustihowe. --barneca (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

in header
Noted; thanks for fixing that up. The links work for me fine in this browser, but the automatic edit summaries have stalled when user and similar templates are used in-header in the past, so I understand where you're coming from. Thanks again. ;) Anthøny  08:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad you understood what I was trying to say! I try to make that change whenever I notice it, but I never know how to clearly word the explanation for what I'm doing. --barneca (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbaro family
I wanted to give you a heads up on the possible return of sock puppet/puppeteer User:Mctrain, it looks like User:Chiboyers is readding material to the Barbaro family page that was added by this group of puppets. I am tempted to revert and block, but I wanted to get your input first. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel,


 * I had blissfully forgotten about him during my break. Yes, that is definitely him, and you can feel quite comfortable in blocking and reverting as a blatantly obvious sock, with no worry of a risk of mistaken identity. --barneca (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * done, it retrospect it was a pretty easy choice, but since I am new at this I needed a little reassurance, thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, better safe than sorry. --barneca (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The user is contesting the block. A little more evidence would be nice at this point. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it was more obvious than I thought. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh
Wow, imagine if RfAs were like the demonstration discussion you wrote here, especially the last three lines of it! :) Acalamari 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was still quite funny though. :) Acalamari 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I try. :) --barneca (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI, June 2008
Thank you for jumping on top of that issue as soon as you did, I really appreciate it. I was reading through the note you left on his page, I was thinking, we should consider the last warning that he recieved his last, so there is always a deterrent if he feels he wishes to contend. Best regards, Chafford (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Back?
Are you back? Per your request when you went on wikibreak, I added your talk page to my watchlist. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm back. I'm trying to reduce my time here even though I'm back, but as usual that isn't working out great.  At the very least I'll be back enough to check my own talk page.  Thanks for keeping an eye out.  BTW, I guess you noticed (a thread or two up the page) our friend is back. --barneca (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

image speedy
thanks for this. I was about to do an IAR delete because I couldn't find the right speedy) when you beat me to it TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I wasn't sure what the right speedy criterion was either, but figured no one whose opinion mattered to me would complain. --barneca (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

while you're here
Could you deal with this?. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. doesn't seem to be a troll (unlike some people), so only blocked for 31 hours.  We'll see what happens after that. --barneca (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's ok. User's only (very) upset about a couple of A7 deletions. I didn't take it as a threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Warning
I have been editing the the "Bareback (sex)" article and i have been editing to return it to its original quality. After the vandalism it endured. I then receive a warning telling me i will be block if i do not stop. If you wish to post me a warning please read the changes before giving the warning as it is aimed at the wrong person in this case.

Thank Matthew Barram
 * I've replied on your talk page: User talk:123.243.186.175.  --barneca (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But can you unblock Eremia, I need only one account, I will use only this !
Please, Barneca , can you unblock Eremia !

I need only one account !

I am waiting for a message !

I will not use abusively an onther account ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.173.69 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC) You didn't answer me ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.69.167 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor returning to his old ways.
Don't know if you remember this in too much detail, but a while back there was an IP editor who posted a few personal attacks and recieved a warning. Part of the conversation can be found here to help reference: here. This user posted under multiple IPs. One of those IPs is now back in the same articles and returning to personally attacking fellow editors here. I was going to post to WP:ANI but since this is a repeat offense and you dealt with it before I felt it may be helpful to drop a note to you first. Thanks! -- TRTX T / C 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

KiX
I would like you to help me write an article about KiX_PBX without violating G11.Filippos2 (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Igorberger
Hello Barneca - I have mentioned you in dispatches here. If you have the time could you please add your comments - especially in relation to that part that reflects my belief about whether or not you had given up on tutoring Igor? My thanks in advance.-- VS talk 11:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey barney, remember me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.55.170 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DyceBot
No worries - that's fine by me. Thanks for letting me know. Rebecca (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know my immediate desysoping wasn't in the cards. Ricky scared me with his wheel war talk... --barneca (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice
When I first saw HoundDog23's comment on the Massino talk page, I did a random check of his contribs and came up with stuff like, etc. On a second look, that sort of thing is not representative of HoundDog's contribs at all, which definitely makes my comments a failure to assume good faith. I have taken your advice and removed the comments (as well as your reply to my comment on ANI, I assume that was okay?). Thanks for the sound advice! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, it's freakin' killing me to know what happened, though... heh.. I know it doesn't really matter, but it's driving me nuts. The name is obviously not a coincidence, so whoever it was had the patience and gall to create a mimic account in the wee hours of the morning on the off chance that they might have a chance to smear GM at some later time?  Their timing was impeccable, too -- if they had just started running around making vandal edits when the account was first created, everyone would have seen right through it.
 * I suppose GM could have used an open proxy or something, and it's still him, but I would have thought the CU would have identified any possibility of that.
 * I dunno, I know I shouldn't speculate, but this is really driving me nuts! ha ha ha... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you mean; it's really bugging me too. I have several competing theories (each assuming bad faith for a different editor!), so I eventually decided "sleuthing" isn't the answer, waiting as patiently as I can for Alison/Thatcher is.  There seem, to me, to be several editors acting out of character, another recently indef blocked sockmaster involved somehow, and it's all just a bit over my head.  If Massino was waiting to be unblocked immediately, I'd be even more anxious for the results now, but since it will be a week at a minimum, I can almost, sort of, contain my curiousity. --barneca (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

heh... Where on your user page does it say you are Irish? I can't even find it...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He's talking about Alison, who by the way exonerated him for Christ's sake. Although I'm 1/8th Irish, so I suppose I should have unblocked him immmediately since my irresistable hatred of all things Italian obviously makes me "involved" (actually, I only hate people who are 1/8 Italian).  That looks like one of the least likely to succeed unblock requests I've seen: blank the talk page and complain that Alison is Irish, and therefore hates Italians?  I really tried to bend over backwards and help him, and he wouldn't do it, so I give up. Did you see our discussion  beforehand?  Fascinating what other people consider "unfair" and what they consider reasonable behavior. I'm quite proud of myself; I wrote a pretty mean and snarky response to him, but thought twice and deleted it right before hitting save.  Am I cool as a cucumber, or what? --barneca (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have handled the situation quite admirably indeed! I did follow the whole discussion, as I found it fairly entertaining from start to finish :D  And really, you performed impeccably.  I really think that as Wikipedia evolves, we have forgotten that admins are now ambassadors as well as janitors/enforcers, and the kind of professionalism in the face of insanity that you displayed is sorely lacking sometimes in other admins.  Good show!
 * It is actually only the 2nd-least-likely-to-succeed block request I have seen. I didn't save the diff, but I actually saw one once that was a simple one-liner, "Please unblock me so I can continue harassing ".  hehehe...
 * The only thing that sucks about his "The admin is Irish!" unblock request is that it may make the Generale D'Amati Massino case a moot point... and then we'll never find out! :( --Jaysweet (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't fishing fo a compliment (although it certainly looks like it, doesn't it!), but thanks. And, notes on his talk page and ANI by Alison seem to indicate that our curiousity about that sock might be sated sometime soon. I'm embarassed to be this curious about something so trivial. --barneca (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And my jaw hits the ground...

(P.S. I knew you weren't fishing for a compliment, but I thought you deserved it anyway. Too many "old school" admins, once they realize the other user is an asshole, they feel like it's okay to treat them like an asshole.  It's a real problem.  Anyway, I digress...)--Jaysweet (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Puppet of banned user
I have noticed that you are active and so....


 * User:72.75.24.245 is puppet of banned user.
 * You can see that IP user:72.75.5.121 and user:72.75.18.173 has been blocked in 2006 or 2007 because of sockpuppets of banned user. Because his new puppet user:J. A. Comment has been banned on my demand on 20 June he has started again to edit from IP. During last 3 years he has used IP range 72.75.xx.xxx and 71.252.xx.xx (example of blocked IP from this range:user:71.252.83.230 and user:71.252.101.51) for editing Croatia related WWII articles.
 * Can you please block IP 72.75.24.245 --Rjecina (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it, but keep in mind I'm starting from ground zero, so it will take some time to review. --barneca (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he is a sock. · AndonicO  Engage. 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have not wanted to call you because of his personal attacks so I have looked for administrator which has never started actions against Velebit or his socks.--Rjecina (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for a possible hidden agenda, I'm not quite sure. · AndonicO  Engage. 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rjecina: I have reviewed the situation, and am very comfortable that this is, indeed, J. A. Comment/Velebit. I only blocked the IP for a week, since it is likely dynamic; he's only been editing from it for a few days.  Not sure what the longer term solution is, since he's jumping from IP to IP; perhaps come up with a concise, iron-clad explanation of the situation that you can either cut and paste, or refer to, when you talk to an uninvolved admin, so they don't have to re0invent the wheel each time.
 * Andonic: thanks for the input, didn't know you wanted to (or Rjecina wanted you to be able to) stay uninvolved. --barneca (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only thing which I am having are his IP address ranges and editorial style (Croatia WW II, and similar). If you both are interested why I am patroling Croatia related articles for this user you can look 3 versions of 1 article. This is Velebit, this is AP1919 (Croatian neo-fascism version) and this is today version of article.
 * Because of this user attacks on Andonic:"AndonicO and Rjecina were teaming up against me " I have not wanted to call him, so that banned user can't recieve new ammunition for attacks--Rjecina (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!
All of those IP's at once from all over the world tells me our cowardly little friend Grawp is at it again. What a pathetic loser. Thank you SO much for the help. I kind of wish I hadn't turned in the admin tools at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)



PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * you know, of course, that if you voluntarily gave them up, you could ask for them back anytime you want? --barneca (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

semi-protect on User talk:PMDrive1061
Hi, looks like we both hit the button at the same time. My 24 hour protection overrode yours. Feel free to change back to what you set originally. Cheers Kevin (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I made it indef is so the vandals didn't have something to plan for; I (or anyone) could undo the protection quietly in a day or so. But it's just a personal tic; in other words, no reason to change it back.  But... I was first, so I win! --barneca (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn this slow connection. I can never beat the Hugglers either. Kevin (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly the first time in my life that my achingly slow connection beat someone else's. I feel like I'm still on dial-up sometimes. --barneca (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Yes, you did.  The cookie is a rather inadequate expression of my gratitude.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

General Mannio
Glad to see you're OK with my reducing the block per Alison, considering that I did so without contacting you first at all. My sincere apologies - Didn't mean to wheel war. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries at all; I said in a couple of places (mostly now erased by General Mannino) that I was OK with an uninvolved admin changing the duration, I just slightly disagree is all (his brainless attack on Alison earlier today clinched it; see the conversation we had right before he blanked his talk page and requested an ublock). Plus, my judgement is suspect due to the indef block to begin with.  Anyway, easy to reblock if it resumes.  Cheers. --barneca (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; had it been anyone else but Alison who requested at the checkuser that the block be reduced, I would have left it be. That said, now that I see that there was a big ol' ANI thread on this, I wish I had checked in first. Hopefully, it's put to bed and over with, barring further shenanigans. Best to you, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, actually. You both handled thing really well, IMO. Onwards to the next crisis :) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, Alison. --barneca (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But can you unblock Eremia, I need only one account, I will use only this !
Please, Barneca , can you unblock Eremia !

I need only one account !

I am waiting for a message !

I will not use abusively an onther account ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.173.69 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC) You didn't answer me !


 * No, I've given you several chances, but you continued to vandalize and use sock puppets each time. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  Use the unblock template on the talk page of whichever of your many, many accounts you want to use, and see if you can find an admin kinder and more trusting than me; you've already abused my trust enough, thank you. --barneca (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

JOINT STAFF J1
You are correct that the portal can be deleted. Thank you. for that.Harry.l.gardner (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI on 72.75.24.245
Looks like he's already back on another account; pretty quickly after you blocked him, this other user,, registered and reverted the prior edit to the article Ljubo Miloš‎. Claimed the refs that were cited were valid, etc. It's pretty clear this is just another shill account of the same IP/user. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not comfortable blocking an account after three edits, particularly when they don't appear disruptive. You may very well be right, but basically what he's done so far is (a) revert your removal of references that I'm in no position to judge; (b) discuss it on the talk page, and (c) tell you about it on your talk page.  I blocked the IP last night because it was blatantly obvious that the person behind the IP was the same user who was behind J. A. Comment, and J. A. Comment was blocked as a sock of a banned user.  Easy.  But I have no special knowledge about what's going on in those articles; all I see, frankly, is you and Rejcina reverting anyone who disagrees with you as a "sockpuppet of JAComment".  I'm just not going to take you word for it, especially after only three edits that don't look bad to me.  I'm afraid you're either going to have to find an admin familiar with the Velebit/J.A.Comment case; write up in some detail an clear explanation of what the user is blocked for, and how you know this is him; or discuss the references on the talk page and see what happens. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as pushy- I felt since you were the blocking administrator for that you would be interested and involved enough to make that determination. Thanks for the advice! --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're not being pushy at all; I just think there's a lot of history there that I don't know, that someone else likely does, and based on what I do know I'm not comfortable blocking after 3 reasonable-looking (from outside, at least) edits. If you know an admin who's more familiar with the situation, I suggest going to them. --barneca (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Update for Mendeliv and Rjecina
User:J. A. Comment has been unblocked by another admin. Since the only reason I blocked the IP was because they were an obvious sock of a blocked user, editing the same articles to avoid the block, it makes no sense for my block on the IP to remain. Mendaliv, and Rjecina, if you guys are sure J.A.Comment is the same person as Velebit, I'm afraid you're going to have to put together a new WP:SSP report (or maybe re-open the existing one, if that's possible), with more detail; it evidently wasn't enough. In the mean time, although I was comfortable blocking the IP because it was obviously J.A.Comment, I am distinctly uncomfortable getting involved in the whole "sockpuppetry in Eastern Europe/Balkans" mess; it's an area I don't know anything about, and nearly impossible for someone like me to decipher. So, I'm afraid I won't be participating in any new WP:SSP; I just wouldn't be of any use. If you can think of anyhting specific you actually think I could add, then of course let me know. --barneca (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for information. I and User:Mangojuice are discussing situation. He is supporter of WP:AGF policy and I am supporter of WP:DUCK policy and this has become unblocking reason.--Rjecina (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm alright, thanks for the heads-up. I'm going to follow suit and keep out of this now that I'm becoming aware of the depth of this case. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are invited to Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on my page
Please, if you still think what you think - contact checkuser and ask for verification of you doubts. My contributions are based on knowledge - not on doubts that someone is a bad guy. You are welcome on my talk pages only if wanting to discuss things related to the articles I've edited.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser was already done, and inconclusive. It did not exonerate you, as you continually claim; it was inconclusive.  But, you know this. As to Velebit; I have no idea.  --barneca (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Barneca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiselandpaw (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chief what's his name (commenting here so as not to rub it in on his talk page)
Cool! I sometimes think that waving the big stick can have a better effect than having to use it. I'll be around when the autoblock expires. -- Rodhull andemu  22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, a good admin can use the tools to get things done. A great admin can get things done without resorting to the tools (stolen from Levels of competence). But then I always knew barneca would be a great admin. :) MastCell Talk 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to disagree when MastCell says nice things about me, but I didn't actually end up solving this; LHvU did, with a 3 hour block of one account that, coincidentally no doubt, stopped the other two accounts too. My threat didn't actually work. --barneca (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just In Case (Anye Elite song)
Hihi

Saw your rollback on the article...there seems to be something a little odd going on there...two editors are tag teaming it and only stuff relating to this person user:Chocolatecbj and user:Aleader Not sure if they are sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or just a couple of kids who found the same article at the same time, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at their contribs? THANKS! LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Legotech,
 * See the section above; I suspect that they are all 3 the same person, based on the fact that a 3 hour block on one of them has (evidently) silenced all of them. If more than one of them comment on the AFD, and the article is kept, I'd be tempted to ask for an RFCU (assuming that the duck test, my first choice, might seem too bitey).  If that doesn't happen, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. --barneca (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed the third one...good catch. I'd left the three windows open while I went to grab Dad at the airport and missed the new guy. Why can't these people put this much effort into articles we NEED written?? :)  LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for the reversions and protection. It's not the first time that particular person has felt the need to leve me a message. There was one on the 21 June and another on the 27. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
for your kind worms, User Binnacle! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)