User talk:Bsadowski1/Archives/2010/September

FYI
An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User SoShinesAGoodDeed
In reference to the recently blocked user, I did want to say in his defense that although he has a history of using a user name for a few months and then starting a new one, his edits have still been largely positive and constructive. Particularly the last few right before the block were quite positive and he was much better at discussing changes and working with fellow editors on pages, something that was not present early on in my and other editors' several interactions with him on various articles. He also agreed to stick to one user name here, also a first. Perhaps a probationary state/agreement could be worked out where this user agrees to stick to this one user name since that seems to be the main problem. It certainly hasn't been his actual edits. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/KissmeKate/Archive
Hello. My English is poor.

I add this.

Regards--HombreDHojalata 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HombreDHojalata (talk • contribs)

Unblock request of Big wedding in a big church
Hello Bsadowski1. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. The user gives an explanation which looks plausible to me, but I thought rather than simply unblock I would consult you first. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a clear block evasion by User:AtlanticDeep. The article that he edited was created by a sockpuppet of him. I would not unblock considering he is a sockpuppeteer. --Bsadowski1 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Morenoosodelete‎
User:Morenoosodelete‎ was also confirmed as a sockpuppet but got blocked for a different reason. Don't know if you want to confirm that userpage. moreno oso (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so so so much
I kind of messed up The Ready Set's page, but this person fixed it in about 3 seconds. Thank you so much <3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinyourstereo (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

note
Since you're laundering socks, you could maybe do this one:.

Thanks, ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

the user you blocked
The recent user you blocked for breaking the username policy you might want to leave a blocked template on users talk page or at least a message to inform the user that s/he is blocked. -- Inka 888 04:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

knock knock

 * What's up with FabGalvez (whom you blocked)? I assumed that was one of Thelmadatter's students... Tks &bull; Ling.Nut 04:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The person made two accounts; the older is unblocked and should be having the sockpuppetry rules gently explained to them. Has anyone informed Thelmadatter about sockpuppetry? -- Avi (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno if Thelmadatter knows, but I very strongly doubt her students do. Many of them are barely able to log in. If that is a student, then the poor editor is quite likely to be very confused and disappointed etc. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why the older account remained open. I also left a note here User talk:Thelmadatter. I should note that if the student wants the newer account, we'll be happy to unblock that one instead. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tks! We have another student (User talk:Papita Inc.) who has run afoul of the username policy. several admins seem to be keenly on the case, but I am afraid the poor editor will (as I said before) be a bit bewildered that she can't use a company name (which is also her nickname) as a username. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What teacher goes around and tells a student to spam random Wikipedians' pages to "ADOPT ME!! ADOPT ME!! ADOPT ME!!"?? –MuZemike 05:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a teacher, students do things like that. How many students did that? One? That person probably went to the talk page of some high-volume page like Soccer or whatever and then just picked names at random... However, it's possible that's not one of her students. Improbable, but possible. &bull; Ling.Nut 05:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If a student went off and did this on his/her own, then he/she should bear the consequences of such disruption. I have no problem with the teacher coming on and acknowledging what the student - acting on his/her volition - did wrong. However, this "student" cannot be given a free pass for deviating from whatever school project he/she was participating in. –MuZemike 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I can count four who did go around asking for adoption. But the one who asked me appears to have been going off the adoption page, and it would all seem perfectly legit to me- save that the teacher is MIA and instruction has apparently been a little lacking. Mm. I think this group of students is going to need some coordinated help in order to assimilate properly, let alone write articles independently. What can be done? sonia ♫  05:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got some spam from FabGalvez and Natquintana that both have the same message, "Hi my name is natalia and i am in a school proyect. it would be awesome if you adopt me." I think Natquintana is a puppet. Can you look into it? Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 05:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at School and university projects also. --Bsadowski1 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wanna laugh?
So here it is nearly midnight where I live, I go to reblock some vandal I blocekd earlier today...and I blocked myself instead. Just got me a gentle ribbing for not only blocking myself but unblocking myself as well. And here I thought editing wikis was behind me after all that good, clean fun we had last month with that one user. Freudian slip, perhaps? :) 'Night! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.
Guess I managed to tick off yet another vandal hiding behind a proxy. :) This becomes less fun with each passing day.  Thanks for watching my back.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiding of peace :D


Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-- Wolfnix •  Talk  • 01:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

199.8.13.1
Hi there. Since you recently blocked 199.8.13.1 I thought you might be able to help me out.

After you blocked, TeleComNasSprVen did this to the IP's talk page (and this to mine). I was pretty sure we were supposed to revert if an IP wiped the Shared IP template from their talk page, but maybe I'm missing something? I didn't want to revert again without getting some outside input. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TeleComNasSprVen has reverted the warning to me and restored the Shared IP template, so that's no longer an issue. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished...
Let's see: We have an autistic savant in San Diego who yet again has managed to create still more socks. Add to that an obscene, criminally insane individual old enough to order off the senior menu who hates this site so much that he can't stay away from it or us. Topping it off, we dodge and parry for no recompense. Are we nuts? :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)