User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 14

=2009=

fonzie gomez
hello i am the author of fonzie gomez i am his publisher you deleted his page which was a true copyright and about fonzie gomez. i just wanted to ask the reason for deletion? conact fonzie on fonziemusic@hotmail.com if you are albe to un delete it that would be mutch grattatude thankyou rita valenzisi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.137.73 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Delta Psi
Dear KrakatoaKatie,

On April 22 you deleted an article, which I am not the author of, but was very reliable in it's description of my organization. Many members of our organization have asked what happened to the wiki article on us. Could you please restore the article for me? I have been an occasional visitor to wikipedia in the past and if that article is restored, I will be a frequent editor of it. Here's the deletion log:

03:34, 22 April 2008 KrakatoaKatie (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gamma Delta Psi" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Non notable group. No reliable sources.)

If you'd like to verify the contents of the article, I'll refer you to www.gammadeltapsi.com

Thanks...

Zugfuhrer

Zugfuhrer (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

wishpot page
Hi KrakatoaKatie,

I was about to create a page for a product (Wishpot) and saw that the page has been locked.

I'd like to be able to edit it. I have been using it for my cooking blog and book quite a bit.

thank you Maxinho (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"yeah, yeah, yeah"?
Sorry to have wasted your (and mine apparently) time Katie, i saw my message got the same treatment as the guy who didn't even have the guts to sign and compared you to HITLER...No answer, summarily "dispatched" with a pleasant comment.

Incredible how (i remember it well) you called me hysterical for losing my temper with a vandal and, after that, i still tried a friendly approach. Well, guess it did not work...

From Portugal, whatever may occur, rest 200% assured i will never post another message in your talkpage. Peace, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Katie. Hope all is well with you.
 * Vasco asked me to chime in, but I thought it best if he and I continued our discussion at my talk page. Have a good one. — Satori Son 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Meridian health hospital articles
I would like to ask you to reconsider your speedy deletion of the articles Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Ocean Medical Center, Shore Rehabilitation Institute and Meridian Health as "blatant advertising" under Criteria for speedy deletion.

While I do agree that there are legitimate concerns of Conflict of interest, all (or nearly all) of these articles were edited by me to address issues of content and tone. The original editor, User:Meridian Health System, had been blocked in mid-December based on username issues and all notifications of proposed deletion went to a user who no longer edits.

As part of WikiProject New Jersey, hundreds of articles have been created and populated for cities, legislators, school districts and schools, with hospitals posing the largest hole in content. While I do appreciate the concerns about the articles, the cached copy I have read of the Jersey Shore University Medical Center reads as a description of the hospital, its services and affiliations and not as blatant advertising. Per the terms of CSD G11, these pages do not "exclusively promote some entity" and relatively minor changes would be necessary to address issues and they would not need to be "fundamentally rewritten". As specified under the general speedy deletion criteria, even if genuine policy issues existed, efforts should have been taken to improve the articles or turn them into stubs. As there is no claimed copyright violation, the only exception to this rule, there seems to be no reason that these options should not have been considered.

Given these issues, I respectfully request that these articles be restored. If there any issues that you see with these article, I will be happy to address them in addition to the general process of adding additional reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for blocking 78.146.156.48. I warned that IP address for doing vandalism and he/she started to target me by vandalizing my talk page in addition to replacing the warnings on his/her IP talk page with curse words and messages to target me. I appreciate that you blocked that vandalistic IP address. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me  00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Grant rollback to me
Would you please grant rollback to me I want to stop vandlisim easer and become a good wikipedian and also use this feture to do so Thank you --Cream horn-- (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton returns?
I was just given a heads up to take a look at 205ywmpq, as it seems the pattern of behavior is similar. DarkAudit (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"TWI - The Welding Institute" deletion
I was looking up The Welding Institute and noticed you had deleted for copyright infringement.

Amongst having hundreds of active research projects, the non-profit organisation is credited with inventing Friction Stir welding and has access to thousands of freely available research reports.

I have lots of historical company information I would like to add and would appreciate you pointing me in the right direction for reinstating the document.

Regards,

Chris Cheetham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.128.9.129 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Errors
Hello,

A while back, meaning June 0f 2008, you extensively edited the page for Chris Daring. I have no objection to a reasonable degree of shortening the length of the page, however you managed to create several factual errors as well as limit the information so extensively as to depreciate its value to anyone doing research. As an example, many of the names that were removed, had been included by me to assist a person doing research by providing them with names that are very difficult to find, and were included with the intention of adding pages about each of those significant individuals to Wikipedia. When complete, a researcher of Texas Style Fiddling could discover a relatively complete and accurate history of the style, its diffusion, and the players.

Consequently, I need to republish most if not all of the original page. Please let me know how to proceed.

Also, as you undoubtedly noticed, several revisions of the page were done in the spring of 2008 that were very nasty and prompted by jealousy. I want to thank whoever removed them. Is there any way of tracking who actually made those revisions?

Thanks,

````Drew Morrison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew Morrison (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!
Hi there KATIE, VASCO from Portugal here,



NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great week, keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Matchpoint (company) deletion
I'm writing to understand why you deleted Matchpoint (company). There are plenty of pages in wikipedia for companies that are just like Matchpoint: Yellowpages.com, Citysearch.com, etc. Why was our page singled out? If there are editorial issues then let me know what we could do to correct them but deleting the page seems very unfair. Can you please get back to me? thanks. Padams (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Can you please restore this page?

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

hi
it isn't vandalism. I'm moving it to the page that already has the brackets so that the new pages can be created later on for each singer. I'm also trying to add the singers' official websites for ref until those pages are created. thanks.--24.248.39.186 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of My Admin Coaching
So, I haven't been very active around Wikipedia lately, but I'm ready to jump back in. Would you still be interested in finishing up my training for admin? The DominatorTalkEdits 02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Long Beach Symphony" deletion
Hello...

I think you are credited with deleting the Long Beach Symphony post due to copyright infringement.

If the LBSO itself gives permission to Wikipedia to repost the data, will you restore it?

Small community orchestras need all the publicity they can get in order to stay alive.

Thanks so much

Bruce Tennant

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow Thanks on the Maryse page
I'm grateful you got it locked due to vandalism and removed the mal-edits. So again THANKS!  FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Hi there. Just a note, when handling requests at WP:RFPP, please make sure you indent your response at least once (with : or *), so that the bot tasked to clean out old requests understands that the request was handled. Regards  So Why  19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

IP indef blocks
Hiya. Thanks for looking into this AIV - and leaving an explanation there as to why you drew your conclusion. I'm not an expert on blocks, so I'm keen to find out more. I shall indeed read the link you gave, and thanks for that too. But I hadn't necessarily expected an indef. block - would a shorter block not have beeen possible, as a deterrence? Anyway, I'll read your link. Thanks again for speedily monitoring the AIV queue & keep up the good work. Down with vandals :) Trafford09 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, KK, and your links - "The vandalism and blocking policies have more information.". I'd remembered reading the former, & the last sentence of the lead had stuck in my mind: "Note that warnings are not always required; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning.". But maybe the key word there is 'account'. Maybe that word isn't used for IP addresses, so I misconstrued its meaning. I take your points, and will now read the policies properly in a new light. Also it's very interesting that you say there are static & dynamic IP addresses. I didn't know that - more research for me, to learn to tell them apart! Thanks again for dropping me a line and - as you say - keep up the good work. Trafford09 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV Decline
Hello there. Earlier today, I had added to WP:AIV, as I saw that the only five edits he had made consisted of some vandalism a few months ago and a speedily deleted BLP page today. Considering that the user could be blocked to prevent future disruption on the most recent edit alone per WP:BLP, I was curious as to why you declined the block. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) ( How am I doing? ) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello KK!
 * It seems I am here for the same reason that NW is. I added User:Niccos to WP:AIV, and you removed that editor from the list without comment, and added a fifth warning to his user page (fifth this month), and one more beyond a level four warning.  This user has been disruptive, and was adding unreferenced opinions.  Specifically, this edit:

''He won against the La lakers in 2009 4 to 3 leading the denver nuggets to the finals. He is not a good player he is a great player. i dont think there is anything this guy iis bad at.''


 * Despite your warning, and the warnings of others, he is continuing to add this edit to the article. I have no involvement in this other than trying to avert further warring.  I strongly urge you to reconsider a minimal block on this disruptive editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, happy to help! Being a chronic AGFer, I don't like to block, so I use a Nerf block hammer wherever possible. :-)


 * First for NW and Toby: The damage was remedied, and I don't block editors for only one edit in the last 18 months unless it was really egregious. Although the page was deleted under CSD, it was pretty standard teenager stuff. It's the only edit he's made since January 2008. He'd never been warned appropriately. I consider that type of block as punishment, not prevention. Blocks stop ongoing, persistent vandalism or inappropriate page creation, etc. Toby was done, he only created the page once, so let's hold some hope that he'll turn out to be a good editor sometime down the road.


 * Second, for LonelyBeacon and Niccos: You were in the wrong place - WP:AN3 is over around the corner. That's why I gave him/her the 3RR warning that I did. Look - s/he's using the talk page for discussion, and discussion is what we want, right? If this were mindless reversion, clicking the 'undo' button over and over again, with no effort to explain or discuss, I might be persuaded to block for vandalism. But this editor, I think, needs to learn about 3RR and the way things work around here. They took the time to learn how to insert a legitimate reference to ESPN with tags - that's the sign of someone who wants to contribute, even if it's not exactly the kind of ref or content we want. Someone I once coached back in the day started out in a similar fashion, and s/he is now a good contributor to the encyclopedia. If Niccos continues to edit war, after my warning, s/he should definitely be reported to AN3, but I don't think this is a vandal yet and I don't want to push him/her that direction.


 * If you have more questions, let me know. Thanks again for the messages! - Krakatoa  Katie  03:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dominik92's Admin Coaching
Sorry, I think your bot archived my last message before you got a chance to read it. I'm ready to be active on Wikipedia again, and was wondering if you're still interested in finishing my admin coaching. No problem if you're busy, I just want to know whether we're continuing or if I should find a new coach. Thanks. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Ramsfan10
My apologies for jumping the gun on this user. t'shael mindmeld 04:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice
Your work was undone, see Administrators' noticeboard where discussion continues. I've notified Casliber as I'm assuming this was not intentional.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

semi-protection
i dont get how it works i put the notice on the top of a page but it doenst apper to get noyiced how exactly is it supposed to work AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

constant deletion
could you get Chris56o (talk) to stop changing blackout he wont stop ive been reverting his edits for a while he made and account to think he was different to his IP address hes persistent and he wont stop weve had alot of people working on it for a while and they never said anything AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

i know that ive been changing his edits because he wont stop he just made the account so as to not show the IP address several users that have contributed to the transformers pages have agreed with the way i left it hes just being persistent AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

this is the guy that wont stop User talk:Chris56o —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcesUpMaSleeve (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

at least change it back so its the way its supposed to be thats how me and several other wiki users have had it nobody complained exept him AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care who he is - stop reverting him. Now. Krakatoa  Katie  23:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont care who he he is either its him who started it weve had it like that for days and to put thing up it has to have a source and several people left it like that because its one of them who put it their the one that distribute to those pages constantly AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, it makes no difference. You have been editing here long enough to know that if you revert him over and over, you're as guilty as he is. It takes two to make an edit war and you both took each other's bait. Now work it out on the talk page. Krakatoa  Katie  23:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

u know what 4get it leave it like that i wont change it promise but some1 else might if i change it from that block me ill just revert the people who insist on deleting it all AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kudo777
I think he/she just logged under User:St. Hubert and began revert-war. Is there any way for you to verify this and stop him/her? Even though I did constructive edits at Greater Khorasan and left comments there at talk page he/she still removes my edit work. This is not fair, what is wrong with the person? I'll appreciate if you help solve this. Thanks.--Mullaji (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Change Super Eights Points table
Please edit the Super Eights points table. West Indies hasnt got qualified. As per Premutations and COmbinations, they can still be eliminated out of the competition. Even if they qualify their places is not guaranteed. If Australia Qualifies then it will Aus - C1 and WI - C2. So the place is not confirmed.

The page is protected so i couldnt make a change

Thanks Chockalinga Ayyappan


 * Make requests for edits to protected pages by adding Editprotected to the article's talk page. Be specific about the edit you want to make - not a description like you wrote here, but what you want the end result to look like. An admin (probably not me) will review your request.  Krakatoa  Katie  04:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am Mehmet Akif Altundal
Dear KrakatoaKatie

You deleted the page with my name last year. That page was created by one my students. However I want to create a new page about me by myself.

What should I do?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.193.197 (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Go create it at Facebook. Krakatoa  Katie  04:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

decendants of sultan bahu
i hope u will restore about hazrat chan sultan and hazrat amir sultan about darbae akbariya that u have delted thank u it means a lot to me thank u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.10.188 (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you said. Sorry. Krakatoa  Katie  04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Evgini Malkin
I was told what I did on Malkin's page was slander. I agree, what I did before was not right (calling Sydney Crosby - Cindy Crybaby) but it was funny. I simply stated that Detroit fans call him Ginny. They do, that is fact! Is Wikipedia about fact or only about Dogmatic views expressed by a certian point of view. Why cannot this be a place where both sides of the fence can edit. Yes, the Crosby thing was out of line...sorry about that. But the Malkin thing is fact. 100% true fact.

I am not trying to be an a--...I just want an explination (explination does not look like it is spelled right....but I think you can figure it out). Kenagelus (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)kenagelus 6-9-09 11:23am

Bayern Munich page protection
Just to let you know that the rule of when players transfer clubs don't happen until the periods of July 1 to August 31 and January 1 to January 31. For Summer Leagues, the winter leagues transfer periods are extended to a certain point. I'm not exactly sure what exact date it closes. So, in the case of Bayern Munich transfers, even though the players signed contracts, they are not officially part of the squad until July 1. Kingjeff (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You can lift the protection on July 1 since there will be no dispute at this point. But it's your call Kingjeff (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
Hi Katie. Wondering if you could consider undoing the semi-protection on Fascism. The party asking for the protect has repeatedly been deleting material and declining to come to talk about it, in spite of requests by me and at least one other editor. I think he is really seeking protection in order to stop me from reverting his edits (which I view to be disruptive edits, since he won't talk about them) so that he can revert more without hitting 3RR. It's a bit frustrating to be excluded from the article, since I've done nothing wrong and I feel I've been gamed. Thanks either way. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, don't mean to teach you to suck eggs or anything, but, according to WP:PP, temporary edit protection should be applied where a page is "subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors", which I don't think applies in this case. Cheers. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore that 'teach you to suck eggs' crack. Others may not, so I suggest you read WP:NPA before posting something like that to _any_ editor.
 * In any case, I re-read the article talk page and unprotected the article after seeing dialogue underway. I seriously considered fully protecting the page, though, and if this edit war doesn't stop quickly I'll do just that. For now, though, there's discussion on the article talk page, and discussion is good. Keep talking, and thanks for calling my attention to the problem. :-) -  Krakatoa  Katie  02:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you and sorry about the eggs. If it becomes appropriate and you or another admin decides to fully protect, then I don't think I would have a problem with that. Like I say, I don't *think* I'm doing anything untoward on the article, but if you see things differently, I don't mind my attention being brought to it. Thanks again. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello KrakatoaKatie. I've blocked 89.242.184.16 for a 3RR violation at Fascism, per the report at WP:AN3. You can modify this block if you think it appropriate. Since there was a technical 3RR violation, and since there has been a lot of uproar at this article, I figured that routine enforcement of the rule was proper. Since you've been following the article, take what action you prefer. I expect the blocked IP to not continue editing with another of his many identities. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do about the Fascism article
Hello KrakatoaKatie. I see that there are intense disputes on the talk page, and many of those discussing are also reverting at the same time. Would you consider imposing a WP:1RR rule? Recent practice suggests that an individual admin can get away with this for a month or more if the article is sufficiently out of control. I think the only reasonable alternative to that is full protection, maybe for a week or two.

Sometimes people get frustrated at the long discussions. There is nothing wrong with a discussion going on for a week or more so long as it is making progress and educating the participants. In my opinion, if admins can't stop a revert war on the article proper, people may lose faith in the process. To keep the editors motivated to discuss, we would like people to think that the article can change if and only if a talk consensus is formed that backs the change. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gak - now I can't put the tildes down to sign my _own_ name on someone else's page. Sorry about that. Let's try 1RR first, 'cause I really don't want to protect it fully. You've got my back, right? ;-) thanks - 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right here behind you, ready to dodge the flak :-) By 1RR I was thinking of one revert per article per day, not per week, in case it's unclear. I suggest offering the 1RR for review at WP:AN before imposing it, since if it has to be enforced by blocks, admins in general need to agree with it. Full protection is simpler, but seems less likely to produce an agreement, since the war will resume whenever it's lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fascism RfC was set up by User:Collect May 19 at Talk:Fascism and has dropped off after 30 days. I thought we had agreement but wrote to all the editors June 17 (Talk:Fascism), after new editors entered.  Should I now set up a new RfC or apply for mediation?  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I think the biggest problem is that the discussion hasn't gone anywhere. Both sides have presented their pieces and aren't budging. I've tried a compromise, and I think we're going to finally get somewhere with the suggestions made by myself, john k, and 78.149.108.242. However, it would help if we could avoid the sweeping changes, such as those made by anon 72.219.171.189. If we can stop that, and finally get a compromise we'll be in good shape. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec x 3) (!) I'm posting it to WP:AN in a few moments. Let's see if others have some constructive things to say about the situation also. Krakatoa  Katie  04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Robin van Persie
I noticed that you fully protected the article based on the request at WP:RPP. But I couldn't help but notice that all the vandalism is from IPs only and I feel that full protection is unnecessary. Leave  Sleaves  07:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IP 3RR on Fascism
That editor (who has also been active on other pages with all his dynamic addresses, I think) is now User:FormerIP it would appear. His addresses all are from Opal in the UK, whence a number of problems have occurred -- most notably LOTRrules almost immediately prior to this series of IPs being used, which might well be a coincidence. The acts of the IPs started in earnest on 2 June, while the last SPI on LOTRrules was done on 23 May, and the posts indicate that they are not in any sense a "newbie" referring to a number of WP acronyms. Merci. Collect (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP
That IP did occasionally make valid contributions, but recently it had begun to add less useful stuff. I thought the easiest way to halt them was a lock on the pages, in case the IP wanted to make contributions to other pages. Maybe I was being too idealistic. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They have shifted to 86.156.237.24 and are continuing in the same Special:Contributions/86.156.237.24 vein. I gave them a general warning for OR, but something sterner from a different source (and one with clout) may deter them. This edit contains OR (The remake Dead films are unconnected) and adds a future film not yet made (Little Fockers), which redirects to a section on Meet The Fockers where the title isn't even confirmed. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
Hi Katie,

Just to let you know I posted on EdJohnston's Talk page.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

208.93.182.157 looks to have returned
An IP you blocked yesterday (208.93.182.157) seems to have returned under a diffrent IP: 205.125.19.139 - it's the exact same editing pattern as before. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive smoking
We reached a consensus on the Passive smoking article (see discussion at end of ). The article can be unblocked. --Dessources (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

86.15x.xxx.xxx
The user we have previously discussed has hopped IPs a couple of times but is still persisting with adding OR to film series articles. I don't have the articles on my watchlists but pop back to them every few days, the two films he/she keeps adding are The Brazilian Job and a Smokin' Aces prequel, neither of which have articles for a simple reason, they don't exist. They are also adding large lists with redlinks or nolinks, neither of which fit with the purpose of the lists (which is to navigate between existing articles or point up redlinks for films which don't have articles for sequels). I don't want to keep asking for IP blocks (as I don't think they will have much effect) but could you semi-protect all the film series articles for a couple of weeks? Darrenhusted (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Scona Academic High School
An IP has vandalized Old Scona Academic High School by copying the Fascism article over. There have been intermediate edits so I could not revert it to the original. I wonder if I could ask you to do this. Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears User:Collect has now corrected it. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)