User talk:Jauerback/Archives/2012

User 86.24.136.71 is back; block again?
86.24.136.71, whom you've blocked on two occasions, is back again and making the same sorts of inappropriate infobox and other edits. I hope this time a longer period of blockage can be imposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's a little late for me to do anything now.  If you want a faster response, you should try reporting to WP:AIV. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I missed the next advent, but others didn't, and there's now a one-month block in place. I imagine that sometime around the end of March, the same kind of edits are going to pop up, with the same responses. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Assistance
Hi, perhaps you can help. I am having a problem with a user, User:Tvtonightokc, who is adding unverified, unencyclopedic, and unsourced content to numerous television station pages. The content in question is what newscasts called themselves over the years. For example, "NewsChannel 4", Channel 4 Eyewitness News" and so on. The content as been deemed unverified, unencyclopedic, and unsourced by a discussion and consensus, yet the user continues to add the information.  I have asked, via his talk page and mine, to stop, but he literally posted to my talk page and the content in question.  I have issued a manual final warning, but need an admin to step in before I go to AIV for vandalism. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of talk page
That user you just blocked, could you revoke their talk page. Thanks. Calabe1992 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of unwarned user
I see that you indefinitely blocked WalkerLF, despite the fact that the user had made only two rather childish edits, and had not edited since being warned. I do not see any exceptional circumstances which might justify this exceptional treatment. I attempted to decline a report on this user at AIV, but was prevented by an edit conflict, and I see that another administrator has declined the report. Do you think there are special circumstances to make such a block without warning justifiable? If not, is there any objection to unblocking? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to unblock. Admittedly, when I see those types of edits as their only edits (albeit only two), I generally have no problem blocking without warning. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am a lot more ready than a lot of admins to block vandalism-only-accounts with little or no warning, and probably the editor was heading for a block sooner or later anyway. Although I would have given a little more rope before blocking, I will leave the block in place. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
That little pest was running free for about an hour. I appreciate you "coming out of retirement." --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrible decision
I must say, this was a very stupid thing to do. JayJasper, who has a clean block log, made two necessary reverts of the addition of contentious material and you block him for 3RR. I hope this was a mistake.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just going to come here and say the same thing. He was reverting vandalism (BLP violations, actually), not edit-warring.  Further, he didn't even violate 3RR, having reverted the vandal only twice.  Please consider undoing this block. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are both entitled to your opinion. If I make any further comments, they'll be in the ANI thread.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the editor in question thread, my comments on this incident can be seen on the aforementioned ANI thread.--JayJasper (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the future, please keep in mind that a violation of WP:3RR actually requires four reverts. -Scottywong | gab _  14:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this the wrong way Jauerback, I don't know you, but I find it disturbing that you refused to apologize in this situation or even acknowledge that you were wrong. By defiantly claiming to be right, even when it's counter to both policy and the opinion of every single one of your peers, you seem to indicate that you would do the same thing again (and, since this is a common situation, so you will undoubtedly get the chance). I would hate to think that there is an admin out there that will carelessly block editors who patrol vandalism and BLP violations as if they were edit-warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

your block of MathieuDeflem
Hi, you just blocked for spamming, but I don't think that was actually his intent, he seems to be simply repointing to the same source documents but hosted at his blogspot site. I know blogspot is problematic, but I think the editor's edits were in good faith. I asked MathieuDeflem to explain what he was doing, could you please keep an eye on his User Talk page? Thanks. 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I was actually planning on doing just that. Since he had been warned numerous times without any response, a block was need to prevent it from going further. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, I just didn't want to have a university professor frequently cited by Wikipedia articles driven away from being a potentially good contributor. Hopefully we'll get his attention in a positive way.    18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:62.102.245.14
Would you please block this user again, perhaps for a longer period. There is a continuous stream of vandalism at Talk:Safety_bicycle
 * Looks like they are blocked now. In the future, it's best to report any vandalism to WP:AIV.  You'll get a much faster response there.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandal resurfaces
Hi Jauerback. User:80.193.96.245, who was just on the receiving end of a block from you, appears to have resurfaced as User:Yololikeaboss - leastways, YOLOLABs first edits seem to be identical vandalism... Rather than letting them go to uw-vandal4 and throwing it to AIV, I thought I'd see if you'd be good enough to step in. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta! Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection of two pages
Was Mr Bones really meant for indefinite and User:Altaïr for a 3 day semi-protection and not vice-versa? Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  16:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out.  I meant for them both to be 3 days. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. I'm happy to help in any way I can. Sorry about all the mistakes in my first contribution. Also, for the future, how do I re-size images in the edit screen? I was about to type in 220 px for the edit because I thought that would have been an appropriate thumbnail size. But if you can, I would love a recommendation of what sizes are usually the best for image previews. Again, thank you for the edit :D

Doobie Jefferson (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be a bit overkill for your question, but you'll find a lot of helpful information on image use at WP:IMAGE. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad Habit (song)
Hi Jauerback. Please, redirect "Bad Habit" (song) to Bad Habits. There is another song with the same name, "Bad Habit" by Destiny's Child. OffsBlink (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. OffsBlink (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

24.15.129.148 edit summary vandalism
Hi and thanks for the vandal block. I'm looking for some advice, please. This editor has learned how to vandalize edit summaries, not the actual articles or their talk pages (see this and especially this). My concern is that leaving edit summaries like these in place may encourage further similar behavior. Should the two summaries in question be redacted in some way (via suppression maybe), or is it something we should just ignore? I've looked around WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and some other places, but haven't been able to find anything that specifically addresses this situation. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've deleted the edit summaries.  You should be able to submit that to WP:AIV and make a note of the edit summaries.  I didn't block the IP this time as there isn't enough recent activity.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had considered WP:AIV but, at the time, the user wasn't yet blocked (they are now) and I wasn't really interested in requesting one unless they continued. If I run across something similar in the future, it's nice to know that this is an option, after all. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: they're not blocked now -- the tag on their talk page is the one you left back on 25 June. Sorry. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for letting me know but nothing really I can add, I simply saw that one editor had been indeffed but not tagged so I did so. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Answer to answer to block request
Thanks for following up. The user's comments on his RECENT edits were as follows: "Just because you do not like Michael Totten does not mean he is not a credible source" after Totten had been added and removed more than twice already and his third attempt to place the Totten comment was titled "Clearly you know little about the issue to make such a comment, did you know that 11 journalist refused the job before she accepted it". Yet even with these, you think warning them about being blocked is going to help?--Aichikawa (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: August 2012
Oh, I thought undoing that edit would erase any sign that I had been there. I was trying to remove that bit of info but then realized that doing so messed up the table. Since I don't know how to fix it, I undid my edit deciding that it would be better to leave a small bit of unnecessary information instead of having a bad-looking table.

Sorry for not having an account, I just don't edit Wikipedia much. 24.113.142.131 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RPP
Hi Jauerback, if you have some time there is quite a large backlog at WP:RPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW`
That was incredibly quick. Thanks for blocking the date changer IP before he could do more damage. I reverted his other edits as well. Kind regards. -- Man way  05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

SOUTHWESTERN ADVANTAGE
Jauerback - would like to help with improving Southwestern Advantage article to make it less like "Advertisement" and conform to Wikipedia standards. Could you please be more specific as to what "promotional content" you believe needs to be addressed.Tjthomas67 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the main issue is the "Summer Sales Program" section. To me, it's way to long with too many details, regarding something that could be condensed into a few lines.  It's the vast majority of the article.  Of course, that's just my opinion.  I wasn't blatant enough for me to remove the section altogether, though.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your perspective. Southwestern is a $350MM privately held company of which the Summer Sales Program (the Southwestern Advantage division) represents about 10% of total revenue. However, I feel confident that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users visiting this article are looking for information on the Summer Sales Program. I believe prior efforts to revise/reduce the Summer Sales Program portion and possibly add content on other Southwestern subsidiaries and divisions met with some resistance. I am not sure on Wikipedia's position of providing content based on user demand versus providing content simply reflecting market size of a business.Tjthomas67 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Therein lies the problem. Users shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia to learn about the Summer Sales Program.  That screams advertisement to me.  They should be given a very general overview of the company, it's operations, and history.  They don't need a detailed explanation on what's involved in that particular program.  That's a sales pitch.  If they want more information about that, they should get it off SA's own website or by contacting the company itself.  Wikipedia shouldn't be the source of it, IMO.  I'm also not suggesting you add more content on other areas to balance the weight.  The rest seems relatively fine. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am no longer a regular editor here, but I contributed a lot of the material in the Summer Sales Program section. I agree with Tjthomas that the great majority of visitors to Southwestern Company are interested in learning about the SSP, not about the company per se. I think readers are well served by having these details available, as most of these details are not available at the company's web site. Sections of the article talk page, and my own talk page, reflect a past practice by Southwestern officers and salespeople (not speaking of Tjthomas here) of adding boosterish claims and making unexplained deletions of unpopular facts.


 * I think that Tjthomas, who acknowledges he is a Southwestern employee, and I have tinkered back and forth in recent months and gotten the article to something of a balance, if not a state of elegance. As to what constitutes advertising, I think the "History" and "Notable alumni" sections could probably stand a trimming. Regarding the Summer Sales Program section, I don't think there is too much information at all -- it is well cited, IMO fairly well balanced and is certainly what a student (of a student's parents) would want to know before committing to a summer of selling books door-to-door on commission. --CliffC (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A small chuckle
Hello J. First a belated thank for your block of earlier today. The chuckle I got came from the combination of your username and my mention of 24 hours in my AIV report. Of course, if your name comes from somewhere else then the whole thing falls apart and I apologize for any offense for my getting things wrong. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Nice catch (on both my username and your 24 request). I didn't put 2 and 2 together until now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be because you are to busy protecting us from terrorists (or is that vandals?) :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
this ip User talk:115.242.64.141 is ridiculous. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 19:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen worse. They still deserve fair warnings. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

TheJoshy
I can't recall ever seeing a more contrite unblock request as the one posted at User talk:TheJoshy, whom you recently blocked. I'm inclined to reduce the duration to something not-indefinite with a stern warning about recidivism, if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's completely fine with me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Revolution/Emberverse
Hi, thanks for sending me a message. In reference to a citation, I don't know where I'd find one, but if you read the book and watched the series, it's readily apparent. Almost to the point it can be accused of plagurism, but I wouldn't go that far. "There's not a new idea under the sun" kind of principle I figured a simple reference in a wikipedia page would suffice. Do you have a suggestion of a better way to draw the comparisons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaedanRaen (talk • contribs) 19:30 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, your problem is that you're coming up with this comparison on your own, which is considered original research. Unless you can find a published, reliable source that has this same comparison, you can't make this conclusion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this count? http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2012/02/JJ-Abrams-sells-new-apocalypse-show-that-sounds-like-the-Emberverse-series
 * Not a reliable source, but I would say it's a start in the right direction. I would suggest posting to the article's talk page for feedback, first.  Also, please don't forget to sign your posts. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The link you removed
Hi,

I just added www.mattleblanc.net to Matt LeBlanc's Page and it was removed. I think the site is relevant since its a fan site of the actor. The URL itself has his name in it, and all the information contained within are relevant to his person/career. Please reconsider adding it back in. thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.103 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Fan sites don't belong on Wikipedia.  See WP:FANSITE for more information. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A rooster comes home to roost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooster --137.191.241.9 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Hi, Right to block this one. Please see Articles_for_deletion/Son_of_God_vs._Son_of_Man. He has several other puppets, and the way to know is that he tried to retire them all. Could you please block those too, else they will be back tomorrow. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Ah jaysus leave the lad alone. Thanks Jauercock. --137.191.241.9 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * History, you may want to file an WP:SPI. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, how nice. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some time ago I decided never to file an ISP again. These puppets just eat days out of my life... I will not let them take days out of my life any more... History2007 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Banks (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polytechnic High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Look up the definition for "Numquam Succumbe"
Because I will not stop. www.nakedtruthnakedbus.weebly.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.232.142 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandal 173.77.243.6

 * Hello, earlier today (and earlier yesterday) I'd reported an IP user to AIV. The first time 'round, my report was deleted with no action.  I saw your response to my most recent report, that there was insufficient recent activity to warrant a block.  I respectfully disagree, as the user has had much recent activity, and is editing from different IPs.  Additionally, the IP user has edited today, although probably after you responded.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robot_and_Monster&oldid=515545432  I don't understand why the community makes it so difficult for honest contributors to report and to suppress vandalism. The system of four warnings is toothless for non-admins, and reporting it to AIV has hit-or-miss success.  When the success misses, the burden shifts again to the editors to spend more time copy/pasting incidents of vandalism to achieve a result.  Maybe.  Thanks for listening to my whining.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)  (below is my earlier AIV request)


 * * 173.77.243.6 Howdy, yesterday I reported 173.77.243.6 for admin review, but I think my request was deleted without any action or response. IP user might be scripting. Seems to be a sockpuppet of 67.61.220.176, and now 84.61.32.210. Similar edits come from these IPs. SIGNS: User adds "Smasho! Productions," "Lowbar Productions" or other bogus production companies to TV show information boxes. IPs also delete valid production information from these boxes. There are some valid edits (removal of extra spaces, etc) coming from these IPs, (also possible scripts,) but the disruption far exceeds the benefit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * * Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. IP hasn't even edited today. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of different factors here. First of all, IPs are a bit tricky as they are often shared.  Meaning, that multiple people can be using that IP address, because it originates from a business, school, etc.  So, with an IP, it's very likely not to be the same person editing from day to day.  Sometimes it is, but it's often not.  Secondly, as you already stated, there was no recent activity from the IP when I initially looked at it.  Most initial blocks from me are generally 31 hours.  That very well may not have affected the IP at all.  With any vandalism, activity from the day before (especially from an IP) will very often result in no action.  You have to remember, blocking is NOT punitive.  It's mean to prevent disruption.  If there is currently no disruption, what's the point of blocking a currently inactive IP? And, finally, WP:AIV isn't very good at handling complex issues.  Admins there aren't trying to decipher what the issue is. Even though you mentioned what you believed to be the vandalism, that's not obvious to most people. 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. I understand that the blocks aren't punitive.  Trouble is, as an editor, I look at a number of the same pages every day, and I see the same types of vandalism either from the same IPs, or from different IPs, on the same page and on different pages.  And when I look through the various IPs' contribution histories, most of it is garbage.  It all reeks of bots to me, though I could be wrong.


 * I think you and I disagree on what constitutes recent activity. From my perspective, having to revert multiple edits from one IP, then the same weird bogus edits from a different IP, over the course of 3 days, with the last event happening the night before sure *feels* like recent activity.  And I also wouldn't put it past the vandals to factor in a cool-down period just so they can slip past the banhammer.  Presently it seems that the vandals get more benefit-of-the-doubt than the editors, and 173.77.243.6 is still able to vandalize.  I shall return.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That was easy!
--S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

CCMRintern
Hello Jauerback! I was considering an unblock of this individual, but wanted to check to see if you had any concerns before I did so. They want to change their username to a non-promotional one and have outlined what their intentions are, and it's not to promote anyone. I thought I'd give them a chance to live up to that. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, no problem whatsoever. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

question about www.mattleblanc.net
is there a wiki page you think it would be relevant to add the site to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.181.251.103 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Offensive Hasty
I find your comment at the Bill Nye talk page to be way out of order. Do not threaten to block editors unless they have done something wrong. And frankly, expressing your opinion about the issue brings you almost into conflict with the CoI policy for admins. Tony  (talk)  08:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I was tired and stressed when I wrote that. Tony   (talk)  08:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no kidding. Not only did I not make any threats, but as I stated, I requested for the page to protected.  I didn't protect it myself nor did I block anyone.  And edit warring is doing something wrong, which is very blockable.  Thanks for your concern.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure: I'm not fit to make comments ... a hard day. Tony   (talk)  12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bill Nye
I've fully protected per your request. Can I ask that if it expires and it's resolved, that you put the semi back on again, as the software isn't that clever! Ged UK  12:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll probably have to request that one as well, as you can see I've already been accused of being involved and apparently giving threats to block above for the very same article. Can't win sometimes... Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I'd just consider it reinstating what was there before, but still. Drop me a note if you just want me to do it. Ged  UK  13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrongly suggested your involvement, Jauerback. Tony   (talk)  13:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing !! notes about possible issues
Can you tell me why articles have ! notes at the top and how those can get fixed or removed? --Fourbrue12 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that you're referring to the Marklund (not-for-profit) article. Have you read the issues that are listed?  Unfortunately, since it appears that you have a conflict of interest, there's not much that can be done to remove the first issue unless all of your edits are undone.  The organization's notability is your biggest issue.  You need to establish its notability by providing reliable sources that show its notable otherwise the article could be eventually deleted.  Doing this will also eliminate the third issue.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can help ....
Hello. I reported a User "Craig.elllis92 (talk) (contribs)" for being a vandalism only account and you rightfully blocked him. If you have a moment could you look at this Users Sockpuppet Investigation, as he has other accounts that are also vandalism only. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize on the delayed response, but I've been away. However, since it appears that none of the accounts are actively editing right now, it's fine to wait for the SPI check to come back.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia. Basically just reverting vandalism and reporting socks. I wasn't sure how long it took for the SPI to happen, but it was pretty quick. Cheers, Mate. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Edit-Warring Notice
Given that Nues is continuing to add to the article without providing reliable sources, a clear violation of WP:BURDEN, and given that their contributions have been challenged and they've been asked repeatedly (by me, no less) to provide sources, I would appreciate it if you'd either revert them or advise as to what you feel I should do at this point. Would you support me if I filed at the edit-warring noticeboard? Thanks for your input, feel free to reply here or at my Talk page. Doniago (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have time to look at this all that closely so I'm not going to take sides. If I get a chance, I may look at it later. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're both right and you're both wrong. They should have provided a source, but you could have easily done the same. I managed to find ones for both in less than 30 seconds total, which I guarantee that you both wasted more time edit warring over the content than it would have taken for either of you to do the same.  It's amazing what a simple Google search can do..  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mention of African-American in lead
If you do not think Kevin Clash should be described as African-American in the lead to his article, you should also removed him from being so categrized. If he is so categorized, he should be described as such in the article lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. I don't recall ever seeing that in any other article. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead and remove both it and the categorization, and let the ballistic defenders of the African-American categories attack you, and not me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you doing
Don Pedro Colley is notable enough for being African-American that people went ballistic on me when I removed him from being categorized as such. You are wrong to prevent his being identified as such in the lead. That is central to his acting history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see JPL is questioning edits you've made to categories, again asserting his unfortunate OWNership of the Category-space. You may be interested to know that I've decided that this behavior by him has gone on long enough, and I have started a RfC/U at User:Purplebackpack89/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert, which you're more than welcome to contribute or sign on to  p  b  p  04:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)