User talk:Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive III

Welcome back
Welcome back from wikibreak. Hope your exams went well. MyNam e IsNotBob  12:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:'(
:'( I'm no bot! :P   _-M    o    P-_    18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * D Its ok, we all do it. Bots couldn't really do this, as everyone has a different signature, and even one bug would cause them to spam every page on Wikipedia with an unsigned template. And don't worry, I've been mistaken for many things, including a troll, puppet master, vandal, admin, etc.   _-M    o    P-_    18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Anabasii
I remember you thought we couldn't have an article about anabasii that rose above the level of a dictionary definition. Now that you're back from your wikibreak, I'd like you to look at the current state of that article. You've been one of the harshest opponents of including information on anabasii, so if you agree I've managed to make an encyclopedia article out of it, I'll be pretty happy. Jimpartame 13:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Andministrator needed
Hi. We urgently need an admininstrator to block User:Adam_Carr at Elections in Cuba. Carl Kenner 10:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

House of Balsic
I got a message from you telling me to stop editing the House of Balsic article, where I wrote that the Balsic family was Albanian and not Serbian, and you wrote they were serbian according to the article Principality of Zeta.

Well let me tell you this: I am a direct descendant of the Balshaj (Balsic) Family, and I very well know that my anscestors were ALBANIAN, as am I. You should not base your claims on serbian literature, which is known for its anti-albanian policy, as wittnessed in many etrocities against albanians and the occupation of their Lands by serbs (which is exactly what they did in Zeta too).

Regards

S.K Dinoshë, Malesi, Albania

Usernames
For the benefit of testing changes to my IRC bot, so it can interpret the messages and report them properly. It's done now, so I won't be creating any more for while. --pgk( talk ) 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Prettytable

 * Hmm...it does. Thanks for the suggestion. &mdash;  Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

would you take a look at
im new here meanwhile i created page but need to merge on the category of abuse.and fix something would you take a look on my page if not yet erased []thank youFelisberto8May2006(UTC)

thanks
now is ok.uh i have a lot to learn.Felisberto9May2006(UTC)

The Doodlefaces
Hi Kilo-Lima. I see you were the one to issue the block for User:Doodlefaceright. I think he then moved on to another account User:Doodlefaceleft and continued his vandalism. I attempted to file at Suspected sock puppets but I think I may not have done it quite right. I have to stop editing wikipedia for now go study for a final. I'll be back Late Tomorrow/ Saturday but in the meantime if you could help me / give me pointers as to how to deal with this that would be much appreciated. Thanks a bunch!!! --Charlie(@CIRL 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks again for your help! (and yes, i'm being bad and editing wikipedia instead of studying >_< lol) --Charlie(@CIRL 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Help at WP:SUSPSOCK
Hi there fellow admin. I've seen you comment on WP:SUSPSOCK and would like to ask you for a bit of help over that project. The project is rather new and for now only I'm the only admin reviewing the cases. I'd like to see some more admins participating so now I'm recruiting admins to give me a hand there :-) If you're interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concernig currently open case, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Of course, if you do not have the time or do not want to participate in the project for any other reason, that's just fine, I'm sure I'll find an interested admin, it's not like we're in shortage of admins :-) --Dijxtra 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied you on my talk page. --Dijxtra 12:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos
Well done on nominating the spinning crucifix image for deletion - it is heartening to see Wikipedians who have strength in their convictions! Cheers, Brisvegas 10:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

reverted?
Why did you revert the IP edit on longest bridges? Kim van der Linde at venus 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this person is adding a lot of good stuff to the page, so just reverting without an explanation and in the mean while invalidating a valid link is not really nice. Kim van der Linde at venus 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Happens to us all. I just left a welcome message at the IP-talk page. Kim van der Linde at venus 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

 * {| style="background-color: #e7efef; border: solid 1px darkcyan;"


 * [[Image:LyttonMajorGeneralMop2.gif|130px]]
 * style="background-color: #e0e0f0; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px darkcyan;" | The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
 * Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.
 * For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
 * ♫Bucketsofg✐ ♪


 * }

user:Goober-peas
Hi. I'm an admin at, and a user by the name of wikinews:user:Goober-peas created an acount there and put the following on his/her userpage: My name is goober-peas. My arch enemy is Kilo-Lima who is a admin. on wikipedia so anyone who wants to help me destroy or hack is account email me at iwishpoop@gmail.com or perferbally at I_wish_poop@yahoo.com wel cyah peeps!

This is easily in violation of what you can not put on your userpage at wikinews. Do you want me to try to get him to retract/remove his comments, or do you care about it?

Best regards, Bawolff 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay (I've removed the comments). You might not know who he is because based on his page, it doesn't look like he has an account. Proably some anon who vandalised something that you reverted and is now mad. Happy editing Bawolff 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE
Hello there. You've expressed some interest in being an investigator over here, and we've a fairly large backlog. If you could come over and help to investigate cases when you've a moment, it'd be exremely helpful. Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) More abouse from 65.172.235.249. I fixed those edits that he did of nonsense about imaginary friends that have not appeared at all. NoseNuggets 11:05 AM US EDT May 29 2006.

EWS23's RfA
Hi Iolakana. :o) Thank you very much for your support of my request for adminship. It's always good to have fellow Esperanzans support, as I know they have the highest standards of civility. If you ever see something that I could be doing better, feel free to leave me a message. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

FS
Its against the unwritten laws of FS2004 to use the default Boeing planes with their default liveries.

68.9.139.134 22:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FS 2
Oh, Hi, I was just reffering to your screenshot in the FS2004 article.

68.9.139.134 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FS 3
Haha, yes, I know that, I have about 250 hours or more of flight simming. I repaint planes professionally. All I was saying is that while it is OK to use the default Boeing aircraft (while there are much better payware or even freeware on the net) the default airline repaints are crap, and it is a good idea to go to a site like flightsim.com or avsim.com to download better ficticious liveries, or even better, actual ones. Maybe you already know this.

68.9.139.134 23:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (Pete)

User:Natalya RfA question
Hey, I saw your question of Natalya's RfA and I felt that I should reccommend its removal since I have seen similar questions on other RfAs, with the writer normally being scolded by a 'crat. (He may use the D word (disappointed)) Anyway, by no means let me discourage you (I like Carte D'or (like that's right) myself, I never did the pineapple flavour again) and happy editting. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 14:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a very fun questions, though. :D Thanks for the birthday wishes, too! -- Nataly a  14:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

FS 4
I like to fly most routes in the US, mainly to destinations less than an hour apart, in a turboprop such as Flight 1's ATR-72, but I also fly longer routes, using the PMDG 737-700, etc. How about you?

Peteg9130 14:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Pete)

Thanks
Haha, yeah, I didn't realize I wasn't logged into my account. Now I am.

Peteg9130 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Pete)

Hi
Lol thanks for the compliment. The reason I don't want to be an admin because it's a big responsibility specially this is a big site. I don't think people would vote for me to be admin first, I don't want to, second I don't use the preview button, third I used to fight with members specially with newbies, I'm not really expert at writing paragraphs lol and last this is time that I should now focus on my school/studies specially I'm in college now I want to be on top so I need to reduce my time going here. But I have something to ask would you give a barnstar? lol I need another one--LooseTheHotButtonS 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I Got An Autoblock But Im Using Custom Adresses, And 1 Account, can u fix it?

Bonjour
I keep getting autoblocked because of a "sock puppet" WGHayes, can you also fix this? Vihrea 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I also am getting autoblocked because of a "sock puppet" WGHayes. Same request. -- Paleorthid 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems seem to have ended as I am able to edit. Vihrea 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help
It is about User:Jamal Curtis. He is sockpuppet of blocked User:Dzoni. There is strong evidence about it. He implicitly admits it. I've reported him and you can check evidence (you can ask somebody who you trust to translate his comments from Serbian to English and everything will be clear to you) but there are no reaction from admins. He is not blocked. Jakiša Tomić 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Thanks, Kilo
I think User:65.172.235.249 needs to be banned after so many warnings. NoseNuggets 10:47 PM US EDT May 30 2006.

Protecting of Tots TV page
The problem with protecting of this page is that the vandalism is all from a single dedicated vandal, despite the multiple IPs. He's come to be known as the Tots TV vandal for his obsession with this page, amoung others. He is a subtle misinformation vandal, who likes to change 1-2 bits of information on a page to make it factually wrong. He also shifts IPs from day to day, so it's difficult to block him long term. Fortuneately his MO tends to be that once blocked for a given day he's done until the next day. Occasionally he finds a second IP within the same day, but usually not.

Several of us have tried semi-protecting the Tots TV page, but it does little good in the grand scheme of things. The vandal simply skips that one target and moves on to others. This has been going on for a couple of months now, and he shows no sign of tiring of it. And the page cannot stay blocked forever. Eventually, it'll have to be unblocked, and he'll be right back at it.

It also happens to be one of the better ways to know that he's in action. It's generally his first target each day, and several admins have it watched. So as soon as one of us spots his normal edit pattern on that one article, he's blocked without warning, and that's it for the day.

In theory we could block all his regular targets, but that would most likely just serve to drive him to pages that are not watched by those who can recognize him, and thus let him get more edits in before blocking, or even possibly have some of him subtle vandalism stand.

So in the grand scheme, I don't think that blocking the Tots TV page really helps things at all, and as is it make it slightly less likely he'll be recognized ina timely manner. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for getting that vandalism to my userpage. I was kind of expecting it because I'm on a vandlism wipe-out right now, but you got to it first! --Niroht 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism done to the ARRSE page - I was expecting this sort of nonsense to be honest - and I am expecting much more. The little freak is heading out across the Wiki placing links to 'his' site E-Goat, an example of which can be found on the RAF page. Can you protect my page please? Cheers! :) Darth Doctrinus 18:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, the ARRSE page please. It is extremely unlikely to change now - but if I need to I'll give you a shout.  Many thanks!  Darth Doctrinus 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)
Thankoooo for the revert on my userpage :) <font style="background: #ff66ff" color="#ffffff">Barneyboo (Talk) 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
thanks for taking the time with the sockpuppet investigation. Cheers. --Karatekid7 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Kilo,

How's it going? I changed from peteg9130 to peteg913, as that is the nickname I usually use. Since you are admin, can you delete my old one, if not, that's OK. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know I maintain the Hamden Hall article, should you ever need to know.

- Pete peteg913 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

64.12.117.12
This vandalizer has no intent of stopping the nonsense edits with the article Crisis Zone. I'm going to escalate the article to Condition 2. I had to revert the article two times in order to combat this IP user's silly edits. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 01:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, if you have the rights to do so, I suggest locking Crisis Zone because a user brought it up and I think it needs to be locked in order to deal with vandalism. Thanks. &mdash; Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Time Crisis
Hi Kilo,

Sorry to bother you again.

I have to go along with Mark on the fact that there is so much vandalism in the Crisis Zone article. Perhaps you could block the IP?

Thanks,

peteg913 02:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

Your very excited supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (hopefully I spelled that correctly) support was fantastic to have, I appreciate it very much!

-- Nataly a 04:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Crisis Zone
Hi Kilo,

I understand. Thanks.

PS.

peteg913 is Pete Mark Kim is Mark

lol

peteg913 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the award. :) Do I place it on my profile page?--CyberGhostface 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

new evidence at CFD
There's new evidence at the CFD for sockpuppet masters that might change your vote. --Kchase02 T 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:UsernameBlock
Hello, I have seen it put both places. I put it there usually for bad usernames especially imposters so that they show up in the new user log prominently. I have also seen it put on both userpage and talk. Thanks.--<font color="Olive">Dakota ~ 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong (talk 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your words of support during my wikibreak, they were much appreciated. -- 9  cds (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

your block of .Angela
didn't seem likely to be an impostor of, so I've unblocked her. The blocking policy states that we should be sure that such accounts are malicious impersonators before blocking them, as people might choose names similar to that of other users without any ill intent. --Ixfd64 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My two bits, which I've shared with Ixfd64: your block was reasonable and within policy. However, where it's possible to believe that a new user may have wanted a username for non-malicious reasons – It's possible, even plausible, that .Angela's name is actually Angela; I'd have doubts if we saw a .Ixfd64 – I'd hold off on putting the 'imposter' tag on the new account's userpage.  It's a bit...harsh...in tone, and might tend to WP:BITE a genuine clueless newbie.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldust
You might want to re-think your edit notes. Your last two edits to this page did NOT remove vandalism. Yes, the text was extremly poorly placed, but not in any way, shape, or form was it vandalism. Many people would take offense to that. They need to be taught where stuff goes, not be labeled as criminals. These edits were obviously good faith attempts. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 20:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Supporting my RfA!
I appreciate the support! My Request for Adminship wasn't jinxed -- it passed by a margin of 54/6/1. I hope to continue to be a "good user" as an admin -- but when I'm not, please let me know! Thanks again for your support, Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin IRC channel
You can have access to the channel, but first you have to be on IRC (PM me).--<font color="#CD2626">Shanel <font color="#EE2C2C">§ 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

4026 IC deprod
Hi there! I've de-prodded the above article and taken it to AfD instead, as I think it raises a general issue of importance to the project. Hope you don't mind. Tevildo 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:C-c-c-c
There is no consensus for a permanent community ban, as reflected in the Admin Noticeboard. The user has requested unblocking and this could be considered by any admin and we are still discussing the matter. You also provided a link to an older version of the discussion that gives the impression that there actually exists consensus for a permanent community ban. I would appreciate if you revert your changes meanwhile. Regards, E   <font color="Blue">Asterion  <font color="Green">u talking to me? 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Reversal reverses YOU!!!
This is a perfect example of a Russian Reversal, a lethal debating tool. See Russian reversal and Russian Reversal at Uncyclopedia.org

In Soviet Russia
I actually first heard about it on Slashdot, but apparently it originated elsewhere. I've been tempted to make that into a userbox....maybe one day...--inksT 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Yusufdaud
I deleted an attack article that he created (twice) on June 9, titled Fraser Healy. Joyous! | Talk 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User:IceAndSorm
What did User:IceAndSorm DID WRONG SO THAT YOU BLOCKED HIM?-User:Agoodperson

Thank you
I never noticed my siginature was broken, thank you for pointing it out! '''<font style="background:#488AC7" color="white"> 69.145.123.171 style=color="#151B8D">Hello! ''' Saturday, June 17, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Dear , Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by user yanksox
Hello I am sorry to bother you. I was the one that started page about Yousef al Khattab. I added all the videos and important info. All is linked to sources from the media and other established websites. The Yousef al Khattab page was then completely rearranged and quoted out of context. All that yanksox and crazy russian etc care to point out are, what they perceive as being negative. Please compare the article as it was b4 it was turned into a "Yousef al Khattab is a monster that supports the wholesale killing of Jews and Jewish kids" article. To being a well balanced article where others can read all the links and see the videos and come to there own occlusions. Yousef al Khattab was also not born in 1971 nor was he born in Brooklyn,He did not move to Palestine in 1997, and amongst those versed in Judaism his criticisms of Judaism are based always with a evidence from Rabbinical Jewish text like Talmud and Mishna etc. I request that the page be set back with the original text including all pictures of his family,articles about him, and videos. We believe that people can make there own decisions based on a COMPLETE viewing of the videos,not the OPINIONS of those that. You can verify all personal details with Yousef al Khattab directly by emailing him at yousefalkhattab@gmail.com The burden of proff is upon yanksox to prove his claims and add the full clips next to his claims so the masses can decide.

Thank You
 * He so WP:OWNs it!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A month or so ago I was innocently browsing WP when I stumbled upon this dude's article. The article was crap - POV, terribly formatted, lots of UE info, etc. But I could not edit it - because I am a religious Jew and it would be a terrible appearance of impropriety. So I asked two friendly non-Jewish users to come and make major edits. User:Yanksox agreed and did a fine job, I think, staying sort of NPOV, but User:Hakamia reverted - like 20 times. Since then he sent emails plainly stating that he is the subject - so now this is a WP:AUTO problem to boot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He just sent me this:

Hey Crazy Jew,

You can stick wiki and all it's rules up your sterotypical Jewish ass. You say your biased then play around with some other limp wristed admin to "fix up the content" thats a very typical Jew trick. You are correct, better not to deal with Jew scum in Wikipedia because simply you are not regular human beings. Josef Gobelles was correct. His speech is EXACTLY the same situation today.

The Jew

by Joseph Goebbels

Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic, the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question. Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.

The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out."

One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.

Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the following radical conclusions:

1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will forever corrupt it.

2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.

3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and nobility only to trap his enemy.

4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights that he always abuses.

5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all, rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to protection from the state.

6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically — he follows entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken through political means.

7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of honor for a German opponent of the Jews.

8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.

9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a result, the opposite of what he says must be true.

10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene. These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success. Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a movement will be feared by them.

The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about terror. We answer with Mussolini's familiar words: "Terror? Never! It is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just as a doctor does to a bacterium.
 * Sorry for the flood. Feel free to delete it after you read. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Hakamia is not editing because I blocked that IP address for 3RR - and I am guessing it was him. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tots TV vandal
You blocked the IP address 82.37.40.131 today for six months with a block message of "vandalbot". I'm not sure this is the proper way to handle this situation, though I admit that nothing that has been done to date about this vandal has been particularly effective long term. This is not really a bot, but rather a persistant vandal I generally refer to as the "Tots TV Vandal", in good part because of his fixation on the Tots TV article. He's been attacking the project for several months now. He's a subtle misinformation vandal, so any time he's spotted I revert every edit he makes, because none can be trusted. The difficult part is that he hops IPs. Usually once blocked for the day, he's done for the day, and does not start up on another IP until the next day. But sometimes he does start up a second IP the same day.

Anyway, besides letting you know in general who you are dealing with here, I mostly wanted to say that, because of the vandal's ability to hop to new IPs, a six month ban on a single IP is practically meaningless. It won't block him, tomorrow he'lll be back on a different IP, and if any of these IPs turn out to be shared, then down the road someone innocent may get hit by the block. I personally tend to block his IPs for 48 hours. Force him to go through whatever steps he goes through the next day to shift IPs, but let the block clear soon after he has left. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
--<font color="#000000">Pilot| <font color="#0000FF">guy 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
Actually, I didn't open the case, it was Kmf164 who opened it, and has now blocked everyone involved with Checkuser. Thanks for the note anyway, and don't worry about intervening in the above ruber chiken case - I'd already spotted it and taken action, but it's nice to know Wikipedians look out for each other! —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok you whon.I am more then faid up to be treated like shit,not be permited to reply,when i do ,to be marked like a crimininal,when i take it off to be trited like a vandal.

I'm back
I'm back from LA. Anonymous_ _Anonymous  10:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)