Misplaced Pages

Important: This talk page is becoming very boring. Please consider leaving hilarious knock-knock jokes so as to spruce things up a little. Thanks!

Misplaced Pages:Don't Feed the Divas

Our environment, the world in which we live and work, is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

for your enjoyment?

Knock Knock!

Who’s there?

Thermos!

Thermos who?

Thermos be a better knock-knock joke than this!

Block

Am I allowed to try to persuade the editors not to block me or am I supposed to be completely silent according to wikipedia policy while they debate whether or not to ban me?--RJR3333 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Tiptoety 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser question

You blocked President Roosevelt?

On a serious note, I've got a Commons CU question. Last year, you ran a CU that revealed PeaceFrog71 and Elizabeth Blandra to be the same, so when I blocked the frog for edit warring the other day (see the "Stalking" section of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758), I told Elizabeth that any editing during the block would be construed as block evasion. She obeyed, but after the block was over, she began objecting to characterisation as a sockpuppet; see the bottom of User talk:PeaceFrog71. All this is to say: do I understand rightly that CU shows the same thing regardless of website? In other words, if I edit the same way here and at Commons with two accounts that are using the same IP address(es), would CU produce identical results? Since SUL results for the frog and Elizabeth are positive, I'd just like to be able to tell Elizabeth that CU's findings at Commons are ironclad strong here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If they edited from the same computer on the same IP address, then yes, the CheckUser data would be the same on both projects. Cheers, Tiptoety 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Need advice/help from neutral third party

• Hi~! Please see Talk:Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12)#Policies Anir1uph and The Bushranger need to read, there's a troublesome IP-hopping editor (whom I believed to be a possibly blocked/banned WP returnee but can't quite place the clue) producing nothing constructive (reverting thrice without consensus!) but heaps of animosity aimed at us regular editors, plus repetitiously raising contentious questions, which had been answered but IP continues to refuse to get the point. Best part was, the IP even followed me to User talk:The Bushranger/Archive13#IPeony. FWIW, I know CU is no good unless we can link the IP's behaviour to that of some blocked/banned editor, so what would our next best course of action be likely? --Dave 16:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• HI Dave. In this case I will encourage you to still file an SPI just do not request CheckUser (if you do not know who the master is just file it under one of the IPs). Provide a lot of really good evidence to support your claims and an administrator will review it and take the appropriate actions. On the other hand, you can always report the issue to WP:ANI (if you think the matter does not necessarily constitute socking and more just wiki-stalking and harassment). Best, Tiptoety 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insightful info. But the thing is... these days I don't have much free time to do that (let alone file SPI) after replying to other editors and improving article pages, so will the simple act of me or the Admin asking you for help be acceptable or better? --Dave 14:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It would be acceptable, but having a paper trail (an SPI) would be more preferable. Also, my time seems to always be at a premium these days and there is no guarantee I will get to messages left here in a timely manner. Best, Tiptoety 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Would like more clarification here. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the request was already archived but I will reply here instead. Yes, I read the thread about your block and noted that it (the block) was reduced. The deciding factor was not that the block length was reduced but instead that it was still upheld. That coupled with your prior blocks for edit warring makes me uncomfortable granting you rollback at this time. By no means does this mean you can not request rollback again at a later date. Best, Tiptoety 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser information on PhoenixMIX

Hello, Tiptoety. I see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoenixMIX/Archive that you said that the accounts listed were "Both highly Likely". I don't know a lot about how checkuser works, and I wonder if you could tell me whether you also checked for other accounts, and if not whether you would be willing to do so. I had intended to put a request for such a check in the SPI, but had to go offline and didn't get a chance before the case was closed. Since one of the accounts has stated that he/she is in a position to use further sockpuupets, and intends to do so if blocked, sleeper accounts are a significant possibility. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson. To answer your question quickly: part of running a CheckUser results in a sleeper check whether intentional or not. Best, Tiptoety 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

urgent: 82.132.244.13

I request that this IP is to be blocked due to harassment towards me on EggCentric's talk page. Thanks Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm, what am I missing here? According to this IP's contributions they have made no edits. Tiptoety 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, someone is vandalizing my talkpage, can you help me?

. Flayer (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have a kitten :)

Wagner in Brazil (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)