User talk:Momo san/Archive 6

RPP Request of Best of Microsoft Entertainment Pack
Hi there. If you wouldn't mind, in the future, if you see a Wallflowers98 sock, such as you reported at WP:RPP for Best of Microsoft Entertainment Pack, could you please let me know either in lieu of or in tandem with the request for protection? This is an ongoing issue I have been trying to finalize an edit filter for. I believe I have finalized it already, and the filter should be denying those edits, but you may catch additional socks that skirt around the filter. If you do catch them, please let me know so I can adapt the filter. Thanks for your work! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Page protection
Thank you for making the request. Yeah, this vandal will not give up easily. He/she is operating multiple sock accounts, who knows how many socks will come! --Defender of torch (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered putting in a request for page protection at Kevin Trudeau? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My use of rollback
I don't believe I'm using rollback inappropriately. Removal of content with no proper explanation (and, given User:HW-lied's edit history) is vandalism as well. I have also given him the proper warnings on his talk page and, while I probably did violate 3RR, I thought on WP if a policy got in the way of properly maintaining an article or fighting vandalism, it could be ignored. Just can't find the reference for it, but I recall it being invoked at least a few times. X X X antiuser eh? 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read when to use and when not to use rollback as an admin will now review your edits and possibly make a determination. Since it's not obvious vandalism, you have to use "UNDO" and give an edit summary in this case.   Momo san  Gespräch 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying, though. His edits were vandalism. He was deliberately removing content from an article with deceptive edit summaries. Now he's trying to get that image listed for deletion after his speedy nomination got removed several times (only once by me). If I end up being the one who gets blocked or punished over this it'd be seriously unfair. If you look at my history of fighting vandalism you'll see that 99% of my reversions/edits are legit and stick. And when I do make mistakes, because everyone does, I try to take the proper steps to undo them and always provide an explanation. Sticking to technicalities hinders the ability to effectively maintain WP, and there's precedent supporting that. X X X antiuser eh? 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see whats happening. He happened to list the image here for deletion and it is indeed in the source article that another admin provided.  So yes I do now think it was justified what you did.  I'll retract part of what I said at AIV.   Momo san  Gespräch 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the reference I was looking for, it was WP:IGNORE. X X X antiuser eh? 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

now indefblocked for Disruptive POV-pushing SPA, apparent nazi apologist agenda, offensive nazi-themed username. Momo san Gespräch 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Thank your for deleting the vandalism on my talk page. I actually don't mind vandalism, if it's merely rude and doesn't contain defamation or offensive words. I consider it akin to a Red Badge of Courage. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Newportm
Thank you for deleting vandalism on my talk page (diff) –Newportm (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit on User talk:209.62.173.50
Hello. I see that you reverted my fix to the IP header template at User talk:209.62.173.50. Is there a particular reason for this? I am going to presume that you never bothered to actually look at the host, since a reverse DNS lookup on 209.62.173.50 shows that its network name is 209-62-173-50.itol.com, and itol.com describes itself as "High-Speed Home DSL and Dialup Internet." — Kralizec! (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well a whois search says it belongs to a company, sometimes the host name doesn't matter like in this case.  Momo san  Gespräch 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does the company name have to do with any of this? Would you also label User talk:68.50.128.120 with the sharedIPCORP header because whois shows it is registered to the company Comcast Cable Communications?  Regardless, how can you possibly say it "doesn't matter" when there is a world of difference between how we handle blocks on small company networks that may have only a couple Wikipedia users, versus a highly dynamic IP pool that an ISP could use to serve across thousands of customers?  — Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The first line of the SamSpade page doesn't necessarily indicate the name you'd see on the outside of the building where the computer actually is located. For example, my school shows up as "MCI Communications Services".  I'm not aware of any tool available to us that can reliably tell the difference between a company that has its own DNS and a building that just uses an ISP, though there may be something Im not aware of.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Soap, that is exactly my point. Rather than just blindly putting MCI Communications on the talk page (something that benefits no one since anybody visiting an IP's talk page can get the exact same information by clicking the "whois" link that automatically shows at the bottom of every IP talk page), some actual analysis is required. Putting the IP given by Soap through a reverse DNS lookup shows "ns1.me.edu" (which indicates it belongs to Maine Community College System) and "dns.yccc.edu" (which tells us it is at York County Community College).

Speaking as an administrator who processes WP:AIV block requests on an almost daily basis, labeling User talk:208.233.33.1 as or  actually inhibits my ability to do blocks because it presents inaccurate information as truth, while something like  tells me exactly what I need to know. Hence why I am so irritated about 209.62.173.50 above, because Momusufan stripped out the really important information (that the IP belongs to an ISP's dynamic address pool) in order to parrot the same useless whois info that was already just one click away. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense to anyone but I don't want to talk about this anymore. The point is made and that is that.  I didn't know it was an ISP and not a corporation.  I guess I should have looked into it further.   Momo san  Gespräch 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Incident
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.XinJeisan (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of .--Asdfg12345 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Koenraads Schwanz in Hexers After
In this edit you placed a block notice on User talk:Koenraads Schwanz in Hexers After, but I can't find any matching block in the logs. Can you clear up the matter for me? DES (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is: What this invitation is not:
 * You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
 * This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
 * This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please watch your reverts
On iOS version history, you restored over a couple of my corrections to section titles. If you wish to revert a single edit, as you apparently did, please use the undo function instead. Ponydepression (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

94.11.28.83 block
FYI your report at WP:AIV: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Cirt (permanent link)

User talk:174.112.181.1
You currently reverted my changes to iOS Jailbreaking. The revisions I have done are correct. redsn0w does not support 2g MC model iPod Touchs. There are no jailbreaking tools currently available, so the iPod Touch 8gb MC Generation should have a red band over it as no jailbreaking tools are available for it (I know this from experience). My other corrections were removed, then corrected again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.181.1 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)