User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deltools

Template:Deltools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Labano Blosko

Tell me please, what exactly i did wrong? I took information that was on her site, so help me post article about Cynthia Basinet. Or give me advice, how to post that page. --Lambano Blosko (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting from other websites is rarely acceptable. Even less acceptable is promotional and advertising material on Wikipedia. Text such as "The quirky natural beauty with sparkling versatility as an entertainer", "a rare inspirational gem of entertainment", "Cynthia has walked the walk", "innovatively strategic move in music distribution" is just press release blather and not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia -- no matter how many dozens of times the same material has been posted on other websites by this person or her publicist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not directly about you, but about the Golden Glory logo placed on your page. --NellieBly (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up!

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cynthia Basinet. I expect it will appeal to the same sockmasters as the AfD. Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

German Shepherd

I have nominated German Shepherd Dog for a Good Article review since I feel that it no longer meets GA criteria. See the review here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:FaeculentVomit

From your block, there's obviously a pattern I don't know. Please enlighten me. LadyofShalott 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a sock of a username identified as a User:DavidYork71 sock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Jpgordon,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting my userpage! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11

Hi. Regarding this log, would you please be a tad more specific about the identities of the sockmaster and/or sockpuppets? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea at this point who the master was, but the accounts involved can be seen here; look at December 3, starting with User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11. I don't recall any details (and I don't keep records). Why? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 09:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Global Warming Controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: that the above mediation request comes from a block evading user User:91.85.47.208 who is blocked, is the same person as User:Jdey123. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked it for evasion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Congru

Perhaps you made a mistake, but in this edit, you state that you have indefinitely blocked User:Congru as a sock puppet; but per Congru's block log, xe is not currently blocked. Did you leave the just leave the template without doing the block itself? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Global Warming Controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Help

I am being harassed and look to you for unbiased advise and perhaps assitance: Today while doing the usual surfing I found that administrator John Carter seems to have resumed an old and long standing fight/harassment/persecution ? He had for some years been off and on attacking the Salem Witchcraft Trial series of articles. Originally he said that he wanted to merge them into a christian religion series of articles, and managed to harass all or almost all of my task group out of wikipedia or any involvent with the task group. Last time I backed away, as I have before. However his group got our main article delisted from good article status and managed to harass me out of trying to fix it or even editing it. Today I posted a strong warning on his talk page and responded to his post on our Salem Witch Trials task force talk page with as strong and to point an objection as I could. His group will likely have a very extenswive influence and if things are as usual this may be the only time I manage to actually post to wikipedia unmolested during the attack. Likely as not there will be an assume good faith attack on me for responding to him. He has been both banned and resricted before. Your assitance or mediation appreciated. This is, as always, beyond my wikiskills. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see how a comment raised on a task force talk page can even remotely be cnsidered harrasment by any reasonable editor. However, this editor has, perhaps to a degree, already shown that there is he may have more than a bit of a POV problem, and I think has already been blocked once for it. I have requested broader input regarding the matter at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Salem Witch Trials Task Force and would welcome your input, or that of any other experienced editor, regarding what may be serious problems regarding NPOV and this editor. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

mea culpa

I can't even begin to imagine what I was thinking when I made this edit. WTF indeed. Thanks for catching my mistake! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling checker, maybe? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI question

I saw your comment that you "Confirmed that Spencer Crispe and Vermont Hardcore Punk are the same." Is that the same as saying that Vermont Hardcore Punk was definitely socking? I ask because I've been giving a lot of basic editing advice to him or her and just committed to helping them learn basic editing. I want to assume good faith but I don't want to be terminally naive. Cloveapple (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser is not magic pixie dust; for all I know, "Spencer Crispe" and "Vermont Hardcore Punk" are two people playing musical chairs. Experience suggests otherwise, though. Perhaps him-or-her-or-they need some instruction in Wikipedia policies (such as self-promotion and abusing multiple accounts) and can end up being a helpful editor with your help and advice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn! Where's Tinkerbelle when you need her? :-) Thanks for the perspective. It helped. Cloveapple (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Stack

I noticed your recent edit to this article and realized that the whole thing seems practically unsourced! Wanna help me improve it? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Pkgediting

User:Pkgintern2 is copying and pasting content from http://www.paulkasmingallery.com in a promotional manner could be a sockpuppet?.Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Or meat, but quite certainly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you Checkuser. Wrightwood906 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops?

I think you meant to use the accept template, not the decline? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Habit... Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

Sad that we're forced to decline more than we accept. Any input on this one? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not sad -- it means our fellow admins are making far more proper than improper blocks...I'd have backed away from that conversation with TopGun a long time ago, but then, I've very little tolerance for long-winded self-justification. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Kiko4564 and User talk:Kiko4564 (alt)

Hi, why is this user blocked again? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate block in the absence of any evidence of disruption, please revert the block. Nobody Ent 16:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The user requested unblock with this statement: "With regards to my bad history of sockpuppetery, I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts, which are also known as benevolent sockpuppets...If given my last piece of rope, I will not be as stupid and immature to hang myself with it." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Unblock of User:Kiko4564. This commitment seems to have lasted about a month. I'll bring it over to ANI for review. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will post my remarks there. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response!

Jkim403 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)jkim403

User wiqi55 violated 1rr rule

The user wiqi55 has violated the 1rr rule he is under. i am also under this rule. if i had violated the 1rr rule, admins would ban me straight away. i hope that if it happens that i somehow break the 1rr rule, then i should be shown leniency like wiqi55. if not then i think wiqi55 should be banned indefinitely NOW for breaking the 1rr rule! (he was already warned once for breaking it by PassaMethod) I hope for some consistency from mods--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the offending edits; since you know where the violation(s) occurred, why should I waste my time hunting for them? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jpgordon, there is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. Diffs are given at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. I am notifying you since your name appears in Wiqi55's block log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about block of NoObsceneUsernames

Hi. I was the admin who originally blocked NoObsceneUsernames as a vandalism-only account. After seeing your note that this is a "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts", I thought it would probably be appropriate to block this account from sending e-mail or editing his/her talk page. However, I don't want to get into trouble for messing with a checkuser block, so I wanted to ask you about this first. — Richwales 03:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking -- you can always make checkuser blocks stronger, I would think. Nobody would take offense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed that was the case, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure. — Richwales 04:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

unblockreq

Hi,
since I've seen you making this check, you really need to repeat this one to see it.
Amalthea 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sullivan's Electoral tactics at Oxford

Hi - it has been a while but I have suddenly stumbled across a better reference. The Oxford Myth, 1988 Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Rachel Johnson, ed, contains a chapter on Oxford Politics written by her brother Boris, now Mayor of London. Page 72 sets out a detailed description of Sullivan and what he did via the Pooh-Sticks Society to gain election.

I have no wish to waste any more of everyone's time posting this on Sullivan's entry if you are just going to delete it, so if you would do me the honour of agreeing in advance that this is sufficient source material I would be very grateful. 90.206.161.236 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article talk page; I'm not the only one working on that article.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry - possible ad hominem attacks by Inclusive Democracy supporters

Sir, I am in the unfortunate position to inform you that, following what went on regarding the 3RR issue with User:Nikosgreencookie on the Takis Fotopoulos page, I have come under what I perceive as an ad hominem attack by a rather vocal (please see the talk page on the Takis Fotopoulos article) supporter of Mr. Fotopoulos and his Inclusive Democracy movement, User:John Sargis. Seeing that other people (such as User:Nihilo 01 - see his talk page) have come under attack by supporters of Mr. Fotopoulos and the Inclusive Democracy movement, I am being led to believe that there is a behavioural pattern that might constitute various forms of abuse (such as WP:OWN and even harassment of other users). Could you please offer some assistance? Furthermore, I would be grateful if you could point me to Wikipedia administrators or prominent editors that are fluent in both Greek and English, so that they can offer you some reliable information (as I might even be partial or I may misunderstand what I have read) on certain positions of Mr. Fotopoulos and his supporters that are only available in the Greek-language section of the Inclusive Democracy website (and are therefore flatly denied by his supporters here on Wikipedia - the language barrier seems to be put to rather good use). Thank you in advance and I hope this issue will be resolved soon. SentientContrarian (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:AdabowtheSecond

Can you take a quick look at this user's request for unblock. He appears from my viewpoint, to understand the nature of his violation and seems earnest in his promise to reform (and seems focused on only one direction articles). But I'm not sure if there was more history or other violations that would warrant a minimum block period. --Trödel 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, no. Feel free to unblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for thinking of the people! ManInTheBlueShirt (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lulu

Aha, called it on the sockpuppet thing :D Even though I can't help feeling that one day I'll be an old man seeing sockpuppets everywhere--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle

This was quite amusing (and accurate as usual).
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry about my block the other day and sorry for a lack of response. I should have done my homework before blocking Irelan12.

Anyway, I've bundled all the issues together into a thread on WP:ANI. You may wish to participate. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No prob. I think the user is quite blockworthy; I'm just a stickler for legality. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kolombus

Hi Jpgordon, I just wanted to let you know that you apparently forgot to block Kolombus (talk · contribs), even though you left a block notice on his talk page... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, you reviewed the unblock request at User talk:JCAla; I left a (quite civil) note on a conduct issue at related ANI discussion, I've been returned with personal attacks accusations on JCAla's talkpage as a reply to this (since he is blocked). On asking politely to remove the attacks [1], he has simply reverted me in a rather smug manner, I guess such such attacks like "TopGun showing off his character" should be prevented either by warning and asking to remove, extending block or by revoking talkpage access which ever appropriate. Making points on another's character in reply to criticism of use of references is quite disruptive in my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(Sockpuppetry case)

Hello can you please check these accounts: user:wakwakwiki, user:banimustafa, user:soufray, user:StrictWikiEditor, user:Jerashray all these 5 accounts refer to the same person.--94.249.93.242 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't take checkuser requests from anonymous users, sorry. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For block evasion and admin shopping while blocked, I have extended the block on your registered account to 1 week. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But he's right about User:Soufray, an undisclosed sock of banimustafa, and the reason I declined his unblock. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, please feel free to take action - it wasn't clear to me at User talk:banimustafa that you meant there was yet another one, sorry. (And it doesn't change the fact that User:Historyfeelings was evading his block and admin shopping.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(Although banimustafa has consented to only use one account now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

We'll see! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Crapectomy

A very apt edit summary here, Sir. In a similar spirit: my rant-cum-suggestion. -- Hoary (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed restriction of User:Wiqi55

See User talk:Wiqi55 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Catcher in the Rye

Hello. My understanding was that Holden tells his story when he resides in the T.B. clinic. Where in the novel does it state that Holden is in a mental hospital? At first, I though that he told his story from a mental hospital. I also explained my rationale on the Talk page. (Galaxycat (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:NOR. My understanding and your understanding are not sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes; we need reliable sources to support our analysis of the story. (You're probably right, though.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

Hello. It is quite frustrating because the novel is unclear where Holden resides when he talks to the psychoanalyst. When I stated that 'it was my understanding,' I did that to ensure that no one would come to the conclusion that I was vandalising the page. For example, I reverted an edit where a Wikipedia user deleted 'psychiatric facility' and replaced it with 'T.B. clinic.' I just hope that the message I placed on the Talk page will lead to fruitful discussions. Thank you for your prompt reply. I endeavoured not to overuse adverbs in this message because I know that you do not like them very much :) (Galaxycat (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

Heh. That's just for articles. Mostly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Leo711

You had declined an unblock request for this user who has since met the original condition for unblock. I'm inviting comment by any interested parties on the subject of possible unblock. See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

By "interested parties", would you include those affected by his disruptive editing? If so, I would like to point out that he has continued to make personal attacks (via hyperlinks obscured by innocuous-looking link texts) well after his final warning. (I'm about to go to bed now so I don't have time to find and post the diffs, but could probably do so tomorrow if you think it's necessary.) It might be a good idea to get him to agree to stop such behaviour before unblocking. Psychonaut (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Psychonaut, this is a wiki. One command that's never obeyed is "shut up" :) Tiderolls 22:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If he acts obnoxiously, block him for that; it shouldn't be hard to justify. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Glitch

Yep, I understand, my friend, but it looked like a glitch to me - who had no blame. Thanks anyway.--Monozigote (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser314159

• 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.2.217.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Jpgordon. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#VanishedUser314159 / SA socking. In my opinion there is no reasonable doubt that these two IPs are being used by SA in violation of his ban. You did the indef block of his last named account that is currently in effect. I'm leaving you a note since I'd rather not be the only one who blocks these IPs. The last time around I logged the blocks in Wikipedia:ARBPS#Log of blocks and bans, after a complaint at WP:AE. I left this alone for a while but it now seems he is revert warring at Cold fusion (removed the section about alleged DARPA support of cold fusion three times over a week). He is indef blocked and was banned from the topic for one year, though the last ban has technically expired. He's been evading it all along. Lately all his IPs have been static. Thanks for considering this, EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jpgordon. I also feel that the evidence is convincing beyond reasonable doubt. However, I will initiate an SPI, if that would be the preferred procedure to follow. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't investigate this problem this week; I'm traveling and enjoying a bit of vacation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy the holiday, this can wait until you are back, no problem. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon, could you kindly look into this topic. I want to edit in a bit of information that has been deleted from the article several times (initiated) by this banned user. I want to avoid him swaying the discussion again. Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked, but I can't quite see what to do about it; I'm not an expert on this user; the event that led to the final block that I imposed was really obvious (I don't even recall if it required checkuser evidence). Someone more familiar with the user's behavioral patterns will be much more able to act. (Though, in this case, the two IPs haven't edited since this message went up...) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you might be the one who is familiar with this user. I think it is good to block these IPs as documentation that the banned user is constantly violating his ban. It might also be possible that these IPs are used for editing with an account, but that would require checkuser. How should I proceed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I already did the checkuser; nothing of interest. The vanished user knows our techniques as well as he knows (and doesn't care about) our policies; he used 209.2.217.151 for about an hour, revealed himself, and then abandoned it. I personally don't like issuing blocks as "documentation"; it seems questionable policy to me. Ed might feel otherwise... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jpg, thanks for looking into this. The editor has stopped fiddling with Cold fusion topics for the moment, but this edit of May 23 regarding conspiracy theories is right on the edge where action could be required. That edit happened while this report was still pending. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A block is the only way I can get "proof" of my accusation that the IP is indeed the vanished user. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Heads_up. He takes part in the FT/N, some editors jump at his "heads up". I warn them that this is a suspected banned user and the reply I get is "go prove it first!". Blocking the IP is the only way for me to show them they are acting to the wishes of a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's specifically against WP:BLOCK policy, at least as I read it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the section Wikipedia:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log ? I read that differently. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear -- but I don't like "marker" blocks, so I'd rather not do them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the community needs a way to make clear that the edits by this IP were made by a banned user, blocking them seems the best way to make that clear. Blocking the IPs would be preventive in that more editors will be able to understand the habits of the banned user and can take action faster in future cases. I think it is without doubt that the banned user will continue with this tactic. So, while I think it's fine that you don't want to make these blocks, I think somebody else should make them. Would you know who I can turn to ? Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

the 24.215 IP is active again. ! --POVbrigand (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You really need to ask someone who is familiar with the behavior of this user; as I explained, I was only marginally involved in a very obvious aspect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New Ukulele History

It is a pretty intense book! So many footnotes and references. But it is very comprehensive and I've learned a great deal about the history of both Madeira and Hawaii! Got any YouTube videos up? You can send me a link at gmail.com with my user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.162.224.26 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Tu quoque

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's block policy, then take it up with them and leave me out of it. Thank you. Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 16:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Puzzling

I'm curious if you think your backhanded way of telling Bugs you think he should fuck off is really better than using the words directly? Was it civil because you cleverly worded it to achieve some kind of plausible deniability? Do you think this meets this "higher standard of behavior for administrators" you mention in the same paragraph?

I, too, am occasionally guilty of hypocrisy, but I usually have the tact to say one thing one day, and do the opposite the next day. You've said one thing and done the other in the same breath, and in the process made ANI just slightly more of a useless flame pit than it already is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say "and damaging the reputation of adminship more that it already is", but I'm not sure that's possible either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure much does worse to adminship than admins telling people to fuck off, though. Long ago I was lobbying for a change in the civility policy to allow people at least some leeway on their own user talk pages; telling a troll to fuck off on your own talk page shouldn't be considered uncivil, and certainly it isn't less civil than using forty words when two short ones would suffice. That didn't go over well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a TB template

Not sure if you're watching my talkpage, but I replied there re: Knowz (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tkovack 1 & 2

Question: the block shows up on the talk page, but not on the User page. Were they really blocked? No need to reply. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the users' block logs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Blueink500

Hi Jpgordon,

A few months back you blocked my account as a sock puppet of Festes. Sometimes things look that way, but I assure you that I have no idea who Fastes is. I am writing to ask you to unblock me. If you don’t want to do that, can you do me a favor, please: tell me that you believe me when I say I have no idea who Festes is. Please! Thank you! Blueink500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.205.17.200 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sunlightshoresforever

I'd check to see if Arnwqu (talk · contribs) is another sock. — Moe ε 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Or something, anyway. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jpgordon, I'm assuming that IP 41.227.136.93 is also IP 41.227.134.123. They seem to have an issue with Turkish related articles. It's quite likely that they are also the recently blocked IP 31.146.35.112 which is a part of User:Ledenierhomme's countless anon's.Turco85 (Talk) 11:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue involving you up at AN/I

Hi JP. I've taken the matter of the HLA123 block to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. WP:ANI I think is the link. I still maintain that this was a block against policy and would like a broader discussion and determination. Best, —Tim. //// Carrite (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

I mentioned you at ANI because you had declined an unblock request. I don't think the ANI issue needs your attention, but it is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

About Joao Gilberto management by ShowBras

"...Moulded into a professional act by manager Brian Epstein, their musical potential was enhanced by the creativity of producer George Martin. They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single..." wikipedia-the beatles

Please check this, taken from the entry The Beatles. It is evident that the artwork in a contemporary setting has intermediation and management much importance and consideration. In the case of Joao Gilberto is no different because in 50-year career, 25 years were managed by ShowBras. So why we should not and can quote it in the encyclopedia entry. It is fair, legitimate, and is used naturally in other artists and conditions, as I remember above. I appreciate your review of the matter.--Gil Lopes (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You may not promote your company on Wikipedia. The most you can do is bring this up on the article's talk page, identify yourself as being part of the company, and provide reliable sources for the information you want to include. Please read our conflict of interest policies to understand; it's not that we don't believe you, it's that every publicist in the world wants to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform, and it flies in the face of being a reliable, neutral source of information. (Is Mr. Gilberto ever going to be able to tour again? I was lucky enough to hear him in San Francisco a few years ago, and it was the best concert I've ever attended.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you know and like Joao. I have no interest in promoting my business via Wiki, what was I meant to mention the fact of having worked with the artist for 25 years, it is also part of the story of his life and it is important to know that reference, as well as in the case of the Beatles that I gave as an example. The site is part of Showbras and brings the best information, including English, about Joao and so I think it is legitimate provided as a reference and not seen as an attempt at self promotion. It is 25 years, not days or months, who has to know the Showbras already know, but the encyclopedia should bring the information. It seems to me to see and before I cut the check request and relevance.--Gil Lopes (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What we really need is independent press reports (or books, or magazine articles, not press releases, but independent stories) talking about the relationship between Joao and Showbras, just as there is a wealth of third-party information about George Martin's relationship with the Beatles. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, you can have this on http://www.showbras.com.br/Artistas_e_Eventos.html, or http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=384865444858414&set=a.379967862014839.95783.100000048848934&type=3&theater ( with my photo and my wife- Veja Magazine) and all records made ​​by Joao in the last 25 years, there is production or production executive my name or the name of Showbras. It is well known. But note that I did it anyway to fix that you asked, I removed references to Showbras until you agree, so there's no reason to insist on cutting what was published, I make mention of Showbras (even though this is a folly, as I have tried to demonstrate).--Gil Lopes (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You should take these to the article talk page. However, you won't get very far; those are not independent sources. We need third party sources, not promotional material from showbras.com.br. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the indications I have are on site Showbras, it is legitimate. There are shown the discs, there are the posters and there is a portrayal of history. This is what I have, which disponhop and I'm ready to share. I hope that other contributions are added, but I see no reason to devalue mine. But I tried to just make these considerations direct to you on behalf of his analysis and I think no matter what I tried to remove the references to Showbras as you request. I have more to discuss, if you think you are not timely and cuts, I'd rather anticipate.--Gil Lopes (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You must address this on the article talk page. I've also put up a notice about this on the conflict of interest noticeboard; perhaps someone could explain better than me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would submit to you some links that demonstrate the participation that I and my wife Carmela have for the entry:

• http://domacedo.blogspot.com.br/2011/06/o-mordomo-de-joao-gilberto.html
• http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/music/detail.aspx?pid=10548&aid=2870
• http://veja.abril.com.br/arquivo_veja/capa_30051990.shtml
• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/carmela-forsin-mn0001229095
• http://www.discogs.com/search?q=Carmela+Forsin
• http://albumcredits.com/Profile/302043 http://www.discosdobrasil.com.br/discosdobrasil/consulta/detalhe.php?Id_Disco=DI00285
• http://www.barnesandnoble.com/c/carmela-forsin/2481772
• http://www.nonesuch.com/albums/live-in-montreux
• http://www.nordesteweb.com/not06/ne_not_20010613d.htm
• http://srv-net.diariopopular.com.br/17_06_01/ip120613.html
• http://www.jb.com.br/cultura/noticias/2008/03/17/o-tesouro-escondido-de-joao-gilberto/
• http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ilustrada/ult90u14334.shtml

So do not lack knowledge and authority to legitimize our contributions and corrections.--189.60.189.35 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC) But what is the conflict of interest? If your asks me to prove and I will send a list of quotes? You compare versions and see what the richest and most true, what was and you guys insist on keeping is simply misinformation. What we have done better and ... Where it is reasonable to resolve the conflict? what is the forum, to talk to? See just above what you has requested, is more than enough.--189.60.189.35 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All I can conclude is that you don't know what the expression conflict of interest means. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeating those links; you've posted them in multiple places, on multiple Wikis, and they're not helpful more than once, if that. The problem is your conflict of interest, and since you don't understand that, you're at an impasse (and I've been forced to protect the article from your edits.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On the conflict of interest Joao Gilberto and ShowBras

But you do not admit that you just asked me for proof and I have sent you many? These evidence are not sufficient even from third parties? What's wrong with them? And considering this, I could remove the mention of Showbras (after I decided to put him to prove what you asked), but keep the contribution in general, why not? Why cut EVERYTHING? You are much better and everything referenced, why not to cut anything? Sorry to repeat, I did not know that it was unnecessary.--189.60.189.35 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Thanks for removing the block. I am afraid that I don't really understand this. When I came home from the libe, I went on line and had no trouble editing. Was this because you had already removed the block or was this because I was on a different ISP? I use a guest account at university library (that is all alumni are allowed) and I have to renew the user name and password every month, will I have problems every time I go and work in the library? I have worked there for years and have never had any trouble before. --Joel Mc (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with you personally, and won't affect you in any way in the future. I imagine there has been a spate of vandalism from the library or something like that; anyway, someone perceived it had been abused sufficiently to warrant blocking. But your editing was never in question. You shouldn't run into this problem again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi. Could you please review the block template on User talk:173.209.146.42. This IP user, whom I have recently helped at WP:EAR, is not in fact blocked and there is no entry in the block log. The user has not received any incremental warnings and I cannot find any reasons for blocking. Perhaps you inadvertently placed this unblock-decline template on the wrong user page? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There's not a block now; there was (I'm pretty sure) an autoblock, and the user has a named account which was blocked for "Disruptive editing, promotional editing, and username policy infringement" on 7 June 2012. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Joao

Could you explain me what's happening there on Joao's page? Who is doing vandalism? It was nice and improving, what's happen with you?--189.60.189.35 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been explained to you a dozen times already, both here and on the Portuguese wikipedia; you seem either unable or unwilling to understand our conflict of interest guidelines, and persist on promoting your own company on Wikipedia. This will not be allowed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think i have to omit Showbras? OK , let's do it...but why? I send you a lot of mentions ( after you ask me for), if you really want to correct something is not like, really, and you comment about what is happening in Ot wiki is not appropriate. There is a vandalism from administrators , from people like you there. --189.60.189.35 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. You'll need to discuss this elsewhere; I find you impossible to get through to. Please go to WP:Dispute resolution; our conversation is at an end. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why it is nothing for you?

From COI WP

1-The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse, and a biography should preferably not be written by the subject's spouse, parent, or offspring. However, an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. 2- It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply 3-Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia. 4-Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion.----189.60.189.35 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. You'll need to discuss this elsewhere; I find you impossible to get through to. Please go to WP:Dispute resolution; our conversation is at an end. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne

Hi Jpgordon, I'm pretty certain that "User:Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne" is yet another sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme if you have a look at their sockpuppet investigation I'm sure you'll see the patterns within their edits. Turco85 (Talk) 13:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

See here, why i was blocked? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&pe=1&#FC_Steaua_Bucure.C8.99ti_page.

You are blocked. You must not evade your block using an IP. You must request unblock on your logged in user talk page page; that is all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Permanently banned? There's no turning back?

No. Just request unblock, from your logged-in account, and perhaps someone else will explain to you why you were blocked in the first place and why you were blocked for a longer while. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi, so on July 29, 2012, you have declined TeeTylerToe's unblock request with the following statement "Entire request reason ignored; you're blocked for edit warring, and you unambiguously were edit warring. And what a foolish place to do it, too. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)" I think that to decline a block request, you should read the reason. It seems wrong to just decline it upright without reading the reason. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? If a block of text clearly has no bearing on the unblock request -- if it clearly does not address the reason for being blocked, especially in a case this egregious and stupid -- why leave the request without a reply, hence wasting the time of the next admin who stumbles across it? There was no way that request would serve to get someone unblocked, and the unblock template is not of any other purpose. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your decision to decline, but to ignore the request is a different thing. If you said you ignored the reason, no one would be happy. I think that there is no reason to decline a unblock if a person did not read the unblock request. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case either. In the case of serial sockpuppets and other long-term abusers, there's no reason to waste the energy reading whatever garbage they stick in the unblock request. But perhaps "ignored" was the wrong term; "read and paid no further attention to" would have been more accurate, since how could I know they were not addressing the block reason without reading the unblock reason? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Please check out this edit history and this user page. Zepppep (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting a fail. Calmer Waters 03:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you see it that way. I should have spoken to you first, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Catcrazy5

Is there an SPI report related to Catcrazy5? I've noticed a few editors, some blocked and some not with similar editing styles to Catcrazy5. These edits especially reminded me of my old "friend" The Verizon vandal™. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No SPI. I just noticed this account when checking out an unblock request from User talk:Blubawer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked catcrazy for abusing multiple accounts without saying which they were. They've appealed to UTRS. I'll obviously keep them blocked but - would you mind if I changed the reason to vandalism, and left the appropriate template on their talk page? The templates are important both for us to see what's going on, and it gives them the appeal routes. Secretlondon (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't much care. Catcrazy5 is exactly Blubawer. Don't know who else they might be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Hello Jpgordon,

Since you hold checkuser privileges, could you please investige that there is any connection between User:Iaaasi and User:Gigibec? This suspicious new user has abruptly emerged at the talk page of the article John Hunyadi which is the favourite article of Iaaasi. Based on said user's contributions to the talk page of the aforementioned article, it is definitely not a new user. I wouldn't ask you to do so, if I saw a quicker way to be investiged this account, but there is a discussion in progress on the talk page of the John Hunyadi article in which this new user also takes part, and asking for an spi for Iaaasi on the normal channel would not be conducted on time.

Should it come to light that Gigibec is Iaaasi, would you be willing to consider giving a semi-protection to the talk page of the article John Hunyadi? --Nmate (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Carmelmount

Hi, I was looking at the talk page for the article Leo Frank and noticed that Carmelmount had been blocked as a sock. I was unable to find the SPI proceedings from the links in the sock announcement at User:Carmelmount. I noticed that you were the blocking administrator,[2] so could you provide me with a link to the SPI proceedings re Carmelmount? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no SPI; another editor recognized this as a sock of a banned or blocked user who I'd dealt with before, and I verified. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the discussion you had with the other editor regarding this? If that's confidential, could you give the user name of the banned or blocked user that you dealt with before? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As the block log and his user page says, he's blocked as a sock of User:Machn. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

unblocking lfcohen

Thanks for unblocking me. You are right, the time of editing before reaching a common agreement for João Gilberto is over. Our common goal is to get the best possible environment for Wikipedia and have rules and guidelines to be observed, including edits on João Gilberto. Lets talk, let's discuss and settle on the best and proper way on doing things, following your advice and recommendations. It is the only way. user:lfcohen

• No New Censorship

Dear Sirs, I would like to compliment these LCohen's words( He is not me! 's good that everyone knows), and who by agreeing with me in Joao's case here suffered penalties as blocking. I agree with his words, I think we should also create a positive environment for developing Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, but I must express my apprehension with such idea that editors can censor or impede the free flow of information, especially when it prevents, for example, information about an important artist has updated his entry to better serve researchers and interested parties. We can not accept a New Censorship in free world, better run other risks because the world knows the consequences of the establishment of such forums. It is a critical but also is a warning and everyone should carefully review positions in order to prevent this is to establish and develop. I'm sure this is a common thought, even among leading members of Wikipedia to whom I beg the license for urge reevaluate the procedures adopted.--189.60.164.201 (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Censorship"? Not hardly. "Refusal to be anyone's marketing platform" more precisely. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, you'll need to do it in the right place, and that's not my talk page or any article talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If my interventions seem to want to change the Wikipedia, this is not my interest. I worry about the interpretation that censors utilize of general rules of Wikipedia. I asked you to your assessment of certain rules in the discussion area of the entry, and you abstained and did not answer it interprets those rules. If our greatest value is freedom, it is important to know how you interpret the rules and simply does not allow important new circulate information. With regard to your accusation of marketing, frankly I can not understand why of your insistence if I have already said that there is no problem in the Showbras not mention in the text, despite dismissing charges of interests, but I do not want to discuss it now, and you know that. Why not move forward and provide information for example about the passage of the artist in Japan?--Gil Lopes (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Request from Mike Diehl

I need your assistance resolving a problem with predatory editing by user Binksternet in the "Battle of Balikpapan 1942" Wikipedia article. He has not only added an inappropriate editorial slant but has reported my edits as "vandalism" now. Frankly, I think it is his edits that achieve the status of vandalism. My edits are justified in the talk page. Rather than respond, he's simply adopted the tactic of reversion. I do not know how to report his edits as "vandalism." He seems to be passionate about the subject but committed to inserting an editorial bias. Mike Diehl (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be able to resolve this on the article talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Not sure exactly what you are implying, but both besides probably being a descendant from Adam & Eve, and apparently have edit some of the same articles none. (If you aren't into the Abrahamic religions theory of origins, than maybe the Most recent common ancestor concept is of your liking?) --ZooFamily (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am implying that you and MrBoire are the same editor; I suggest that if you are not, you stay away from the same articles, as you are indeed editing from the same IP and apparently on the same computer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a laptop, and I am the only one that uses it. IP addresses are not of any concern to me, as each time I log onto the internet I get one. As far as being on the same computer, I'd like to know what indicates this.--ZooFamily (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll find out if the coincidences recur. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the zoofamily has been blocked yet again for edit warring. If there are broader issues such as sockery, I suggest that the block be made indef. JP, you have insight here that I don't. Toddst1 (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, WTF is up with the zooster smiling at you on my behalf. Not that I wouldn't, but I didn't. Something is is FUBAR here. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Socky trolling. I've indeffed him and two more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Useful

Hey, instead of wasting time trolling the checkuser logs, why not make yourself useful as an admin and look at Marianopolis College's history log, as no 3rr flags have been raised even though I've reverted it 4 times?--ZooFamily (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Robot wagner

Thanks for the quick look! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:UnQuébécois

Hi Jpgordon. I'm in the process of reviewing this users unblock request (blocked as a sock of User:MrBoire). There's no SPI investigation that I can find, but I'm assuming you blocked after running a checkuser - if you can just confirm that's the case I'll close the unblock request. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Checkuser verified socking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

DQ has now opened a pro-forma SPI for reference. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Is good. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi. Any chance you might be considering it again? : ) - jc37 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, is there an emoticon for "running away screaming"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rofl. I had the image of a screaming madball (or the logo to Major League) hurtling through the air when reading that : )

And fair enough. I thought it couldn't hurt to ask (though I spose a sudden stroke may not have been beneficial...)

Happy editing : ) - jc37 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your unblock request response

You recently declined to unblock User talk:Usgrant7 because "You're blocked for edit warring. None of the rest of this request is even relevant". In the long unblock request, the user does state under the section Agree to behave that "You have my word of honor that I will not engage in any edit warring ever again.". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Shrug. That's the problem of TL;DR. He can make a WP:GAB sort of unblock request again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And then when I look again, that promise is directly below "I admit to trying to preserve this article, a great many people I respect worked very hard to write and inform Wikian’s about the subject. I admit that I did exactly what JzG did, but was honest enough to use my own account to do it with." So while the words may have been appropriate, I am not sure the user actually understands what is required. So thanks and sorry for bothering you ! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Old block

I would appreciate some comment on my statements here [3]. I deliberately waited quite a while before commenting on this, just to make sure that things still look the same with hindsight. And they do. I have got to say that it still appears to me that your and MastCell's actions are not consistent with the block policy as it is written. I don't know if you and MastCell are wrong, or if the way the policy is written is wrong. But one of those has to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering your own statement "I believe my actions are justified for reasons stated in my revert summaries and on the talk page. I'll take my lumps if the 3RR folks disagree and would welcome the discussion. Cheers", your rather bizarre interpretation of "biased" is what led you to your "lumps". The BLP and block policies are clear: your interpretation of "biased" is not. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing that it is not biased to link Mr. Akin's statement to other statements by other Republican lawmakers 10-20 years earlier? To turn the thing around, would it therefore also be unbiased to include Rev. Wright statements such as "God damn America" in the Obama article? William Jockusch (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in having this conversation here; my sole comment is that your conclusion that either I'm wrong or the policy is wrong omits the possibility that your interpretation of the policy is wrong, which is what you were being told all the time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, is there an appropriate forum?William Jockusch (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You could try and get the policies changed via WP:CONSENSUS on that policy's talkpage...after all, that's really what you're asking for. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm

Now that turned really ugly for no reason. Makes me think I should really rush to complete this essay (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. He was kinda wrong from the start. "my username doesn't represent anything" - after signing himself as "Founder of City FM National". Someone not quite paying attention. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I just want to apologise on behalf on my friend who goes by the username OneThingMan for the vandalism he caused and the comments he made towards you and MaxSem. It started out as a bit of a laugh but then he took it too far. Just wanted to apologise for that because sure even if he could he wouldn't do it himself. Fonzleclay (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Medal

Yes, and I don't understand that part. It's about an actor, how do I know if he has some university degree or something like that? Keeeith (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That part should be easy enough to find in the actor's biographical notes, no? Anyway, if the person doesn't normally use such things -- if your candidate doesn't usually go by Norbert Busboy Ph.D., ACE, or something like that, then you probably don't need them. Besides, won't the committee looking at the nomination do some of their own research? I'd sure hope so! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding a block

Hi Jpgordon. Sorry to trouble you with this, but I'm in the process of reviewing a UTRS request from User:Johndrwhosmith - you've blocked him as a sockpuppet, but I can't locate the appropriate sockpuppet investigation or see any other evidence tying him to another user. I'm probably not looking hard enough - could you please point me in the right direction? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There's now an unblock request on his talkpage, which I've put on hold pending your response. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some other admin -- and some other checkuser -- may wish to review this, but while checking another user, it seemed clear to me one person created several user accounts in quick succession and/or used several accounts in close succession on several different IPs: User:Psedonymbosch, User:Tobeanon, User:Anonymouswhovian, and User:Johndrwhosmith. It's possible there's another reason for this coincidence; you might query the user about it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like pretty sound evidence to me (Anonymouswhovian looks extremely suspect); I'll relay this information to the user and ask for his explanation. Thanks for the exposition. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ip 82.113.122.164 is me

Hello I just realized that I am not blocked now. How can this be? Whatever the case, there is a serious problem with User Bouron. I do not want to be racist at all, but he seems to be a kind of Ossetian Ethnocentric-POV user. Although I warned him twice he is continuing with his 'bad-faith' behavior. What sould I do now? I need some piece of advice. Thanks. --Riversides (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Pledge

I re-performed your pledge test. It appears Google has modified their translator, but it's just as funny "Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States, under the justice and freedom for all, indivisible God, I think it'll be one of the country the Republic will stand." Ryan Vesey 07:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I guess mine is now a historical artifact. An unverifiable one! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

unblock

Can you unblock my French Wikipedia please ? Fête (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Socks

Josh, I noticed you declared that User:Guinsberg and User:BilalSaleh were puppets of User:Dalai lama ding dong. The template links to the investigation, but it doesn't have anything in it about these two users. Can you help me understand what led up to this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Another editor emailed me with his suspicions, including good links giving enough similarity to run a checkuser. I'm 100% certain the two users are socks of each other, and the rest of the information matches Dalai lama ding dong's behavior and patterns for me to mark it as a match. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Just in case you forgot, you didn't actually change the block for BilalSaleh.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Odd. Musta done the other one twice. Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hank Harrison

Could you take a look at WP:BLPN#Hank Harrison please? It's about his daughter and LSD (and the so-called polygraph proof which I've removed). Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's Hank Harrison himself, see WP:COIN and BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimmermanh1997

Could you give a second look at the SPI listed above? It was closed due to no overlap by User:Dennis Brown, though he did concede that the accounts were probably the same user. After User:Diannaa blocked User:Hollisz (one of the accounts listed in the SPI), the user (Hollisz) used an IP listed on the SPI to circumvent the block. User:Drmies blocked the IP for one month and increased the block on Hollisz to one month also. This is the overlap that we were looking for on the SPI. Could you take a second look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Zimmermanh edited on exactly one day, well out of CU range, and has not returned; and the IP connection to Hollisz is already confirmed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We believe that Zimmermanh is the puppeteer of the IP and Hollisz, so we need the connection to block Zimmermanh. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, and how am I to provide any information about Zimmermanh? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that if anything could come from a CU, it would at least give us his IP or whatever at the time he edited and then maybe we could connect it with the 98.204.145.138 IP he is using now. If all that works, we can block Zimmermanh1997 and Hollisz for sockpuppetry and maybe put a long term block on the IP. That's my hope anyway and alot of "if"s in there, I know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Well, there's no information whatsoever to be gleaned from CU regarding Zimmermanh, and the link between Hollisz and the IP is obvious. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Damn, is there any other way, besides DUCK, to connect Zimmermanh and the IP/Hollis link? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really. But what's the big deal? Zimmermanh hasn't ever returned; if it does, we'll have CU data or we'll notice immediately from the editing at the radio stations. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to get rid of this guy once and for all. Getting tired of picking up after him, so to speak. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gary Powers

Thanks for providing an exact quote. But the article still says that Powers was held for two years at Vladimir Prison. The Vladimir Prison is in Vladimir. The Lubyanka Prison is in Moscow. How could Powers have been interrogated at the Lubyanka Prison for two years? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. I just followed the link from the DoD to find out exactly what the Silver Star was awarded for, and once I saw that our language was an exact quote, I understood both your objection and the solution, or at least part of it. If you can find a reliable source objecting to the incorrectness of the citation, it might be worth putting in. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Han2007

Given where he went, and that he evidently had trouble with Civility there in November [5], do you think it would be appropriate to pass this along to an admin on Spanish Wilipedia?

I'm cross-posting this with Mike Rosoft since you were the two who have handled the editor's blow up.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you think there was some reality to the threat. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence with it. I can see putting jaw in gear before thinking things through, but that was more than a bit OTT. Han seems to be in better shape on es.wikipedia, though I'd worry they may go off there as well.

I'm not 100% sure that a heads up wouldn't create that type of situation, hence coming to you and Mike Ronsoft for your opinions.

- J Greb (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IP Problems and Blocks

Hey I noticed there was a block on the IP address that I edit from at work. I am not certain what happened other than User: Wilania did something to cause the block. Due to the way our internet is set up at work I could not put in an unblock request (AHHHHH!) Is there a way to take care of the inactive or trouble acounts without blocking the full IP Address? Thanks, Cjones132002 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. There's a really weird bug in the system where autoblocks are showing up for people blocked long ago. Even if you can't file an unblock request from work, I still need the IP information to find out which IP the bug is interfering with. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will get that information to you when I am back at work thank you! Cjones132002 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I found it, Special:Contributions/63.230.167.170 This is the IP address that was blocked due to activity by User: Wilania. I try to make contributions (mainly to music pages) when I can but the blocks due to troubled users can be a pain. can they be just removed? Thanks, Cjones132002 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding any blocks or autoblocks on that IP. How strange. Next time, cut and paste the exact message you're getting, maybe I can figure it out from there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It does appear to have been lifted, thanks for your help! Cjones132002 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant's Strider

Log shows you checked this guy on 23rd Jan as part of his unblock request. Did you happen to notice whether he was editing on Rogers Cable or not? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not. Not even same hemisphere. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Was PS's IP from Austria per chance? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, though that's few thousand miles closer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I assume that they were not using an obvious proxy service, as far as you could tell? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not an obvious one to me, at any rate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Æðð

Hello, Jpgordon. May I ask you a question? One month ago, you put an SP tag on the account seen here, annotating it as a sock puppet of Æðð. I was wondering if you might be able to refer me to the page (if there is one) where the evidence for that is located? I am seeking to confirm if the tagged editor in question really is a sock puppet, or if this is just a mistake. Thanks! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you noticed that he was editing again; I guess I forgot to block him properly when I put this on his talk page. There wasn't a formal SPI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that the user returned to editing this evening after a 30-day block by renaming an abortion-related article (a potential POV-flag), followed by blanking the warnings and banners on their user pages. Glad that I asked, and glad to be of assistance... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cyclops2007

Hello. I noticed you blocked Wonnydude (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who was an editor on John B. Kimble for abusing multiple accounts back in 2011. The second AfD for that article has drawn what appear to be socks. Everything is stale now, and I can't find any documentation, but I was wondering if you have any insight as to who Wonnydude was related to if anyone. I doubt that you do, but it I figured it would be worth a shot. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no idea. I don't keep records, and the checkuser log isn't helpful. You might want to double-check the username spelling on this SPI -- User:JungleJamm does not exist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 07:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Shoot (capitalization) NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why you blocked accounts of my (head of Internet Cafe) customers?

The following words are from user Sunny Singh (DAV) on the behalf of the head of "Internet Cafe" Mr. Sunil Verma -

The reason for block is "Abusing multiple accounts". Jpgordon misunderstood that a single user has created a number of accounts with different names. But he is not aware of the truth. Different persons are using their own account from this computer they are not able to edit Wikipedia. This computer doesn't belong to a single Wikipedia user, but it's a "Internet Cafe's" computer. This computer is one of the 43 computers lying below this roof. We call this computer with a name i.e., Wikipedia. There are also some computers with different names like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, C++, Software, etc. A number of people come to this Internet Cafe and use Wikipedia, Facebook, etc. People who want to use Wikipedia, use this computer. People who want to use Facebook, use Facebook computer. The person who owns this Cafe charge us 25 rupees per hour for using Wikipedia computer. Persons using Facebook have to pay 35 rupees for an hour. So, here is no one who has multiple accounts. Multiple accounts being used from this computer are of different persons. Some users use this computer named as "Wikipedia" to read articles, some for making edits and many users came to ask questions on Reference Desk. I, myself, come to ask questions. Jpgordon has blocked all accounts using this computer without asking them or telling them what he is thinking. I know any administrator will do the same thing. But Jpgordon has done this mistakenly. I am not the head of this cafe instead I am a customer. Since I am the oldest user of Wikipedia from this computer, the head of this Cafe asked me to unblock the blocked accounts so that he would restore his customers. I have explained the whole story and you now know what is the real truth. So, please, restore (=unblock) all accounts (of different people) being used from this Cafe computer as soon as possible. Thank you! 27.62.140.224 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. But I won't object if another admin reverses this. It seems odd to me that there are so many users from there that do nothing -- nothing -- other than post on the reference desk. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As Sunny have already mentioned most of them are students. The goal of a student is to take knowledge, not to distribute knowledge. Yet, they have not acquired high level or scientific knowledge and you know the articles on Wikipedia are not so easy that a 10th or any other normal standard student may edit it and make changes in it according to his will. Please, unblock their accounts so that I could restore my customers. 106.218.12.88 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

my unblock request at User:ObjectivismLover

I appologize if that was confusing, but I was requesting an IPexempt flag on my recent changes account, as I'm currently under a hardblock (see User_talk:Crazynas#IP_block_exempt) Regards, Crazynas ^t 06:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of! Disregard the last. Regards, Crazynas ^t 10:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I think I am experiencing administrator abuse and an administrator who is trying to censor a topic and suppress views on it. How do go I about reporting this? I know nothing serious will happen because wikipedia is a bureaucracy but I want to have it on record.

The administrator Qwyrxian is displaying some bias views towards right wing hindu nationalist organizations which have been committed atrocities documented by human rights watch. This concern about his involvement in India - Pakistan politics was also brought up during his administrator application and unfortunately he is embodying it. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC))

User talk:Dscna

I hope you don't mind. I've unblocked the user, as they're trying to get a username change. If that fails, I'll note at WP:CHUS for the other crat to ensure the user is reblocked. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the username change unblock. We should keep an eye on their edits, though; as far as I can tell, they're mostly promoting their position on the breed, or something like that. This user also has used a number of different accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're socking abusively, that's a different matter altogether. I dropped them a note about COI. --Dweller (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Kreative Essence Motion Pictures

Hi, I don't know on what you based your statement that I'm "obviously" the same person as User:Kreative Essence Motion Pictures. This IP addres is being used by 60'000+ employees of Aon Corporation and I'm one of them. I'm not Kreative, I have no idea who is that person is and I was never involved in any self-promotion or spamming on Wikipedia. If you look at that persons talk page you will see that he or she has also attempted to insert the unblock template, but did it completely wrong. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, JP, I'm not seeing the connection either (disclosure: I dealt with KEMP's UTRS unblock request, which was declined). Any chance you could offer up an insight into your reasoning? I'm assuming you've spotted something that I missed. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a checkuser. And fond of anagrams. So when I did a routine check of the IP, I saw the creation of KEMP right after Kravietz's edits, in such a way that would yield  Confirmed on WP:SPI, and that your username is an (almost) an anagram of that company name, perhaps I jumped to a conclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

JP, you certainly don't suck. Cheers for the explanation. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I explained the IP is being used by 60k people worldwide, so chances that two people will be editing Wikipedia at the same time are quite high. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was checking to see

if I had been banned from wikipedia for unsportsmanlike conduct and it turned out the other guy had, but I ran across you and really enjoyed touring your user page. But . . . ... "an advanced ukulele player" .... well I am (massive failure of imagination on my part) struggling with that one. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, to get an idea of real advanced ukulele playing, here are few tastes (can't link to youtube from here):

1. Jake Shimabukuro's astounding version of While My Guitar Gently Weeps: youtu.be/puSkP3uym5k
2. The late John King performing some Bach: youtu.be/WAgMqbsKhgw
3. Probably the best uke player right now, James Hill, playing One Note Samba: youtu.be/FO7spLjad3k

Enjoy! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Kate Micucci (the new addition to The Big Bang Theory) and her ukelele playing as part of Garfunkel and Oates like here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:OceanBlue13

Just FYI: After you declined this user's unblock request and told him in no uncertain terms that he was NOT allowed to remove a declined unblock request, he immediately did it again. (Someone has reverted.) Also he is now filling up his talk page with BLP attacks similar to those he was blocked for. I'm wondering if you might want to consider blocking him from his own talk page as well. Thanks for all the cleanup you do here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, never mind; BWilkins beat you to it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to edit warring after block expiry

You recently declined an unblock request from 70.190.0.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Immediately after the block expired the IP went straight back to the same articles and made the very same edits that got him/her blocked. You might want to review this user's actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What?

Hi, Jpgordon. I was blocked by abuse of multiple accounts? Really? Érico Wouters ^msg 23:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Some odd brain fart here. I think I need to sort this out! (But I can't tonight; too tired to be precise.) I think I might have been doing two investigations at once and crossed my wires. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okey Jpgordon :). Thanks for explaining. Érico Wouters ^msg 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Andreasmperu

I attempted to engage with this user about the Charlie Jade article and it was 12 hours until she finally responded with a legitimate reason for reverting the edits and decided to engage with me on her talk page or the article talk page. Just because I was not logged in she discounted any modification to the article to be trash edits. Did she handle the situation appropriately? Alatari (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:European Legend

This may be of interest to you. m.o.p 05:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Another checkuser can double check, but this is an IP with a dozen or so socks (not all properly tagged) of User:Robbieranger. SPI will come up  Confirmed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nirmal Baba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godman (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) 18:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gruesome Foursome

Hi. You recently refused an unblock request by this user, who had been blocked a second time for edit warring: see User_talk:Gruesome_Foursome#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_2. S/he is back with another personal attack: see [6]. Attempts to engage with this user do not appear to be going anywhere and his/her behaviour is just getting worse (see the progression of comments over time on Talk:Mid Ulster by-election, 2013). Could I ask for some input on what to do next? I'm beginning to feel WP:NOTHERE applies. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You've reached a new low Bondegezou. 9 reverts and one talk page post, that's your record of engagement with me. That's before someone even looks at what you've actually said, or more importantly, ignored, regarding the disputed edit. I've nothing to say to Jpgordon. He is not what I consider fair or balanced. If he attempts any communication with me whatsoever, it will be deleted. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not "fair or balanced" because I refused an unblock request that (a) attacked other users, and (b) admitted to the reason you were blocked? I suspect the next communication I have with you will be in the form of a block; you're much too combative to work well around here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much point repeating it here as if somehow I'd not remembered it correctly. You know what you did, I know what you did (or rather, what you didn't do). No doubt even Bondegezou knows what you did, he came here asking for your help to take me out after all, and you seem only too willing to oblige if these thinly veiled threats are anything to go by. Without having looked at anything that's been going on at all, again. Yes, you're all about the fair and balanced approach it seems like to me. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help with banned user

A user you temporarily banned is now active again and vandalising a |biographical article as revenge for getting banned. Will you please get involved as a administrator and try to talk sense to him. He is pretty hostile to me and the other editor who tried to make him aware of wikipedia policies. Thanks. --Neelkamala (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

But I never blocked that user; I simply denied his unblock request. I don't know which edits of his you're considering vandalism (as opposed to a content disagreement). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i was confused, i thought you banned him as i saw your name on his talkpage. The page under attack by him is Arun Jaitley. Please take a look at it's page history. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's WP:BLP issue, please bring this up on WP:BLPN. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:morechoff

Thanks for the updates. I would keep the faculty list as that reminds us all who was there and when. Maybe others will be able to fill in the dates. --Morechoff (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that's not what Wikipedia's for; that's what alumni sites are for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Mysterythings1.jpg
• File:Mysterythings2.jpg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange sockpuppetry case for User:Dalai lama ding dong?

Hi, I just recently checked the sockpuppet (stated in title) and am curious to know, that without an investigation of sockpuppetry, how you managed to block another user User:Upper lima 65 and managed to relate him to the above stated account? I can't seem to find the investigation of a clerk admissioned checkuser. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Same way I blocked you. I have no idea what a "clerk admissioned checkuser" means; if I am presented with reasonable suspicions from reliable sources, I investigate and if necessary act. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jpgordon, is there any particular reason why that didn't happen here? (See [7]). Andreas JN466 13:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is a particular reason, I've no idea what it might have been; that was six years ago, and I have enough trouble remembering why or why not I did something six days ago. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, as to why I didn't block Qworty there and then: at the time, when I was doing what's now SPI work, I kept my hats separate; I always left it for another admin to do the actual blocking before closing the case. I'm surprised that nobody followed up on this one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like it was simply closed, and no one ever followed up. Andreas JN466 17:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Steven Soderbergh

Hi, you've just deleted an edit I did to the Steven Soderbergh page, and IMO your justification is just not up to snuff. You say that the table is "real hard to read -- a lot harder to glean information from. The list is easier". Well I happen to disagree completely. I personally find the table is a lot easier to read and gives more information more quickly than the list which I found appaling, or else I wouldn't have spent hours making said table. For you to delete such an edit based solely on your personal opinionis in my mind, contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. I will however refrain from reinstating my edit until you have a chance to reply. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's exactly what Wikipedia is about. We're all editors, and we're all equal here as editors. Your opinion that that table is a userful addition is as valid as my opinion that the table is difficult to read, difficult to use, and aesthetically unattractive. That's why the guideline WP:BRD -- bold, revert, discuss -- is useful. I'll happily engage with you on the article talk page about this, should you desire. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jpgordon...

In the Danny Elfman article you reverted my edit of an "ska" band to a "ska" band. My question is: do you say the names of the letters when saying "ska" = ES KAY AY, or do you say it like the word "scat" without the "T"? Cheers, Shir-El too 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More like "scar". It's intermittently popular in the UK (big in the early '60s and early '80s). Definitely "a ska band", not "an". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. It's not an acronym or anything. Of course, looking at ska would have shown just that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Vrghs Jacob (a master sock) is back!

Hello Sir,

User:Vrghs jacob is back and is again using multiple socks to:

1. Broadcast his personal opinion using Wikipedia.

2. With some accounts he's violating copyrights, with some putting up notable articles for deletion, putting irrelevant tags to articles, making unconstructive edits, plagiarising, reverting constructive edits by others, swearing and calling them vandals while he's the one who's vandalising Wiki.

3. He's using multiple accounts and uses them to interact with his other accounts as if they're used by different persons, a pretence he's been using ever since he was caught for the first time.

4. He loves to edit pages from the Government of India particularly Indian Revenue Service.

5. He claims to have an MBA from IIM Calcutta and PhD from Nanyang and on the top of it, has cleared Civil Services Exam with an All India Rank of 67 and joined CRPF (no one in his stable mind would do that, if he gets that high rank, since CRPF officers are stationed at extremely remote places fighting naxals and terrorists). No scholar or admininistrator/bureaucrat has so much time to sit all day on Wiki.

6. The made up name of his doesn't show up in google results.

KSince you've been dealing with this sick, demented mind, I thought to inform you. I tried to open an SPI case before this, but he got away with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uncletomwood/Archive

I know he's the one, I can smell him from a mile. I shall continue to blow his cover until he's gone for good.

Please have a look at Indian Ordnance Factories Service. He's saying that IOFS officers are trained at National Academy of Direct Taxes! Why would they learn taxation? Thay have NOTHING to do with taxation. I added citations from the official website of the President of India, LBS National Academy of Administration, IISc Bangalore, Times of India, Metal & Steel Factory, IIMs (Indian Institutes of Management) at Ahmedabad and Indore which he reverted. How can revert citations from these sources? Instead, he should be putting references to back his claims about NADT which he has not! On the other hand he has accused me of being a sock and a vandal and has semi protected the article.

Notice plagiarism at [[8]] which he totally copied from [[9]], It was his previous sock.

Please take time to lead the investigation thoroughly since edits made by editors like him take time to be rectified and until then many readers get misinformed. Please don't let him know about the investigation until a check user is complete as he would try to evade like he did before. Hoping that the truth shall prevail. Thanks! I think signature was necesaary, sorry! --117.219.227.60 (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Delaware

Hey man, I see you merged the Delaware in the American Civil War article. Now I understand your reason for doing that, but I have to ask-

If I manage to find some more sources and string the article up a bit, could it become an article again???

Thanks, Themane2 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's how it could. Expand the History of Delaware#Delaware in the Civil War section, and if gets large enough to deserve its own article, it will get one (and probably someone else will do it for you.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

CU data note

Given your comments here and here, could you update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahek faldu/Archive? Nice of them to confirm via autoblock note that they're socking even without needing CU involvement:) DMacks (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where grudge holding vandals come from

See [10]

Rejecting an unblock request by saying something that essentially boils down to TL;DR is understandable given how long of a read the request is. If I were you, I wouldn't read it either. I admit even as I'm writing this that I haven't even skimmed that person's first sentence.

But you shouldn't reject it without reading. You could pass it to someone else. Or show that you tried to. There are people who are willing to read something written for them, considering they believe other people's time is worth as much as theirs, and other people spent much more time writing. If this person spends all the time writing it, it's something meaningful to someone, and people who see themselves as equals will be at least interested in what that person thinks is meaningful.

Everything you did was understandable. You ain't wrong. But any human you do this to will be upset and maybe one day be a real vandal to Wikipedia--you know, like those famous ones.

We all go into these last ditch peace attempts sometimes in our lives, and beat the dead horse when we shouldn't. And we're all lucky when we did it, that no one took the opportunity to throw a slap in the face. Because that could happen to anyone, and make him/her resort to a vendetta.

This is where grudge holding vandals come from. 119.57.31.233 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, except the wrong part. Grudge holding vandals come from a primary desire to be destructive rather than constructive. Asking someone to please read instructions on how to be the latter than the former is hardly what creates vandals. Bad parenting is probably the main cause. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if you do believe they weren't normal people to begin with, which may one day be verified true or false, there's no reason someone will vandalize Wikipedia, and only Wikipedia, if he/she being bad is the only factor. The point is, whether it happens depends on how Wikipedia's people behave. If you didn't have to say TL;DR and close the request, well 119.57.31.233 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Unionvillian

Hi. Just wanted to let you know the above user keeps removing the block-related templates from his talk page. Since you were there today as an admin, I thought I would let you know rather than go to a dramah board. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi JP, you were mentioned in this case and I am notifying you in case you wanted to clarify or had any other input which may help. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Breathtaking

Did Richard Warren Lipack's unblock request set a new record?—Kww(talk) 00:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey CU

Hi Jbgordon, perhaps you're interested in User talk:Internet boy mahek faldu, since you ran your magic tool pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahek faldu/Archive. Muchas gracias, Drmies (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure is a persistent annoyance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you could give me such communications via Facebook. :) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

HoshiNoKaabii2000‎ confirmed sockmaster?

Hi Jpgordon, I filed an SPI for Unorginal, and voiced a suspicion that there might be a good hand/bad hand campaign going on, or meatpuppetry. It wasn't clear to me whether HoshiNoKaabii2000 had absolutely been confirmed as a sockmaster. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it, I think Hoshi is the sockmaster. If someone wants to change those pages they're welcome to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi JP, is there any way we could add add a block template to the Hoshi talk page just to make it easier for other editors to find? Incidentally, Hoshi is protesting his innocence on his talk page. I dunno if you think it warranted to explain to them why they were blocked. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

His user page User:HoshiNoKaabii2000 has the block notice. He's welcome to claim innocence, but compare these edits made at 17:45 and then this edit less than 10 minutes later, same IP, same everything. It's pretty unambiguous from a technical Checkuser point of view. Should he make an unblock request, I'll give a summary for the reviewing admins. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I crossed a line with the heckling. Thanks for the even-keeled warning. I'm removing the talk page from my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Somebody doesn't like you: User:Jpgordon deserves jaiI -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Likes you less: User:Godo Dodo sucks and needs jaiI --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Lowes1234/Cableguy

He added this as Vandalism, I assumed good faith and revert his edit, added a welcome note but should this inaccurate report be removed? Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Axelf has removed it. Murry1975 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Spike-from-NH

Howdy howdy, Mr. Gordon. Could you review the situation at Spike-from-NH? He's caught in a range block (here) set by WilliamH (since retired) to stop a Mangoeater1000 sockfest, it seems. Since it doesn't involve proxies, I'd recommend a rare IPBE instead of changing the block to anon-only, but I'd like your opinion in case I'm missing something or misinterpreting the block. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been offline for a few days. Has this been resolved at all? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he has a temporary alternate connection and is in no rush. Kuru (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Saladin1987

Hi. I saw your unblock decline at User talk:Saladin1987. I have summarized the main points in his unblock request below the request itself (diff). Saladin appears to have problems communicating in English but, I believe, it is unfair to penalize him for that. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable thought, but then it brings up the problem of competency being required. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

True. But then that should be the reason for the block (it wasn't). --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So go ahead and unblock on your own; you certainly don't need my permission or anyone else's. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't. I'm marginally involved. But, no worries. Use your judgement and do (or don't do) whatever you think is appropriate. I'm not going to badger you on this. --regentspark (comment) 21:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A fan

Someone does not like you. LadyofShalott 23:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe likes him too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

unblock request

Thanks for the fast answer… can I just delete the full request block?

Iskánder Vigoa Pérez (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. In fact, I'll do it so nobody looks askance at it. (The general rule is to not remove denied block requests, but ones like this aren't the reason for the rule.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser pre-request to preserve privacy

Would the CheckUser procedure and emailing details be appropriate where an IP address and a username probably represent the same editor, a COI is apparently present, an article about an organization is affected, the IP address is probably shared in the organization, and outing is a concern? No vandalism, BLP contentiousness, casting of multiple votes as sock puppets, disruption, or editing as if aware of the COI constraint is present (the editor may have a COI but not know Wikimedia's view of COI) and no block or ban is appropriate (good faith should continue be assumed). The article has some promotionality and POV problems. Someone with that username edited not this article but one other article on English Wikipedia (I didn't check other projects), suggesting that they may specifically wish not to be outed. The article is being edited from an IP, which I geolocated last Sunday to at or near the organization's postal address. The IP address is not single-purpose, but the IP's editing is mostly to the article. The username editor wrote that s/he "work[s] for" the organization. Because of the risk of outing, I have not tagged the article, the article's talk page, the IP talk page, or the username talk page and prefer not to identify the username, the IP address, or the article publicly here on my own. Evidence that the IP address is being used by the editor with that username was found in a context in which spoofing is possible, if not very likely; stating the evidence here would make outing much easier, so I'm omitting it at the moment. I can fix some of the article's promotionality and POV problems but the article seems to be watchlisted or on an RSS/Atom feed so some fixes may come from other editors, so I have not edited the article for this purpose yet, preferring to do so when I can either tag with COI notices or be satisfied that there probably is no COI. I previously raised the issue at WT:COI but have not raised it at COI/N. I chose you by trying to select a CheckUser editor more or less randomly from among editors I don't know. Should I email you the confidential information, including the evidence? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC) (Corrected excess brackets: 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

If there doesn't seem to be any serious wrongfulness, I would suggest attempting to discuss it with the named editor. I generally assume IP edits were simply forgetting to log in, given the lack of otherwise improper behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken

Have you been following the situation at this article? Some kind of intervention is needed, and soon. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

JPG if you/other Admins could please weigh in on whether or not it's okay to have the full text of the poem, that would be great. Here's a link to the section in the article's Talk LeoRomero (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm already there. But this isn't an admin issue in any way; any editor is welcome to help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) How do we proceed from here to reach consensus on whether or not to include the full text? (2) why did you not remind TheOldJacobite to be civil (have you read his comments?), and (3) why did you revert to his version instead of mine before you locked it? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My comments? I never insulted you or called you a coward. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not on this page please. The discussion can continue at Talk:The Road Not Taken. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

questions about ban of Ahnoneemoos in particular, and banning in general

Hi, Josh, I am an uninvolved bystander looking into the details of the Ahnoneemoos ban. You recently reviewed the ban notice over on his talkpage, so I figured I would contact you about it. I had a brief conversation about the incident with SilkTork (over on their talkpage), but did not really get the answers to my questions. I'm more generally interested in the ban-hammer on wikipedia, rather than the details of this particular issue -- I consider it more of a case study that will help me figure out the overall shape of the process, as opposed to something directly relevant to my own wikipedia interests. I have not had any contact with Ahnoneemoos directly (I found out they were banned by accident after reading one of their essays and then visiting their talkpage to ask them a question). I have also not had contact with SilkTork excepting today of course, or any of the other editors involved in the pre-ban dispute over on the page about Mayors in Puerto Rico. Besides researching the use of bans for my own knowledge of how wikipedia works under the hood, I am of course interested in seeing wikipedia function correctly, including treating folks fairly. Whether that occurred in this particular incident, is unclear to me; I'm still slogging through the edit-history of the involved pages. Do you have a few minutes to give me an independent admin's perspective on banning as a tool? Thanks. (please ping me on my talkpage if I don't respond promptly) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for banning unwanted people and protecting Wikipedia. :======(•) ==WIKIGEEK4970== 02:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Various counter-examples to your then-valid arguments, as put forth on your userpage in 2012

"The site of the Battle of Gettysburg was the scene for an unforgettably[1] Presidential speech during the Civil War. The New York Times reported[2] that President Obama was very moved."

edit:

"The site of the Battle of Gettysburg was the scene for an unforgettable[1] 1863 speech (by then-President Lincoln) during the Civil War. The New York Times reported[2] that in 2011 President Obama was very moved."

counter-edit:

?

Note that I slightly corrupted the validity of the sourced portion, changing from unforgettably-Presidential to straight out unforgettable. Naughty! Plus, fully admit this is a contrived example... but I've seen things like it. In particular, wikipedia articles (as opposed to wikinews blurbs) get out of whack when people do *not* edit them with consciousness that wikipedia is intended for the ages.

"Last week, LikwidBuzzsaw's lead guitarist was incarcerated[3] for possession of illicit chemicals; the remainder of their concert-dates this year are reportedly[4] in jeopardy."

edit:

"During the week of October 7th 2013, LikwidBuzzsaw's lead guitarist Fuzzy Mullet was incarcerated[3] for possession of illicit chemicals; the remainder of their 2013 concert-dates were reportedly[4] in jeopardy."

counter-edit:

?

If you fail to specify the name of the lead guitarist, then you end up needing to say then-lead-guitarist, at some point. Ditto if you don't specify the October 7th 2013 in the prefatory phrase. I get annoyed when people delete stuff which is merely 'old' by some personal standard. Notability is not temporary. Articles that cover LikwidBuzzsaw as if the current band-members and this year's tour-dates are the *only* notable things about the topic drive me nuts.  :-)

p.s. Interestingly, although I disagree with you somewhat about thenectomy, I'm right with you on the over-use of ironically... and ironically, I'm right there with you on the over-use of the word interestingly.

p.p.s. Since this is a talkpage rather than an article, I fully admit I was too lazy to look up the year of Lincoln's speech, or Obama's quotation... let alone the relevant dates for Fuzzy Mullet's jail sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone's paying attention. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Leo Frank revisited

It appears that a new sockpuppet of User:Machn may have returned. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notification: Les Etoiles de Ma Vie

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidentsregarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Veriss (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Moramayelp (talk · contribs). Who's the sockmaster; Evlekis or somebody else? bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Gbgfbgfbgfb. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRaulRomero‎

Hi, I'm not complaining about your actions with respect to this disruptive editor, but just in case you didn't see it, you might want to read this for more information. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Shrug. Claiming to be a bannable editor suffices, I'd think. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabucho22

Hi Jpgordon, I saw the back-and-forth on the Gabucho22 talk page and was curious who the CheckUser decided Gabucho was a sock of. (It's sometimes difficult to link all the sock jobbers from memory). My money says that he's a sock of TrelocKidding, who is a sock of Brightify/FanforClarl/HoshiNoKaabii2000, etc. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dunno; I didn't look very deep. I just saw multiple gabucho* usernames, older ones already blocked, so didn't really care who the underlying annoyance was. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

want you to come and discuss on talk page of syal tribe with as much enthusiasm as you showed when you were blocking me [kirtimaansyal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I never blocked you or the user you name, I have no idea to what you are referring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

user:Ronaldomessirooneymourinho

I saw your unblock decline message ... it appears the blocking admin actually blocked this user as a sockpuppet, not because of the edit warring (which, this user name hadn't continued since the warning). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Which I would have noticed if I'd looked at the unblock queue in reverse order -- I was just chasing down another sock of the same annoyance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How about (just to maintain protocol) you decline as "checkuser verified sock of blocked user", which is what I would have done if I'd looked in the other order (or paid attention to the block log at all.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kwanzaa

You might want to semi the talk page too, just RM'd some vandalism. Tis the season, eh? 71.11.1.203 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh, the talk page has never been a problem...easy enough to just rm the rare crap. If only there was an automatic "protect this every year between Dec 1 and Jan 15" sorta thing... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Note to self

nyingma 70.197.14.254 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, self. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And to you too! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Out with the old...

For 2014: Wishing you a Healthy, Happy and Fulfilling NEW YEAR! Shir-El too 07:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thewikiguru1

I seem to remember a long term abuse case with a similar M.O. (editing other user's comments, switching images in vandalism warnings, not replying to talk page comments, general incompetence, etc.). Does this ring a bell? -- John Reaves 17:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Vaguely but not enough to cough up any names. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock Block

FYI, in this diff [11] you said the user was blocked indef, but it is only blocked 1 week. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, got distracted watching a parade... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sock

I'm no sockpuppet, just one edit before a "block" from... IP (?). What's happening, please? --82.60.135.101 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism. I'm taking care of it (or trying to.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --82.60.135.101 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy paste WP:COPYVIO from IP whose talk page you deleted

User:186.30.44.144 did a copy paste of material from http://www.ayurvedacollege.com/articles to California College of Ayurveda. I was going to leave a message on the talk page for that IP (I know fairly useless) but found you had previously deleted the page. I am going to recreate it. If you feel it is useless or has served it's purpose you may delete it again. If you wish to contact the IP user by all means do so. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob, the deletion was for something unrelated as far as I can tell. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpgordon. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 05:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page rambler

Hey JPG, you're my randomly-selected admin. :) I was wondering if you could please take a look at this character. Seems to contribute nothing to the project other than long, pointless rambling complaints on their talk page, and on other talk pages. Both IPs geolocate to Westerville, Ohio, so it might be the same dude interacting with himself, perhaps for therapeutic purposes. Naturally, seeing this type of prolific nonsense on two talk pages leads me to wonder if there might be others... I'll keep poking around. Thank you, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: 173.11.226.201 and 50.8.27.98 have similar styles, particularly the rambling, critiques to the cosmos about shows they love or hate. [12][13][14] Both geolocates to Texas. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's now at WP:ANI, so it will get more and better eyeballs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, I saw that. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bird2 puzzle.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	DAMN! Newyorkadam (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Nonsense

Legwork on those recent socks done here, if you'd like to make it official. m.o.p 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of Gbgfbgfbgfb?

Hi JP. Sorry about that, but per the recently closed Gbgfbgfbgfb SPI, is Dnsesutinre a sock that escaped? The MO and edit-warring on Mikoyan MiG-29 is very similar to the other socks. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I've tagged as appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You have checkuser privilege

and anyway you assumed bad faith when I asked to see why my ISP is blocked from editing Wikipedia anonymously. I really can't believe you answered the way you did. See User talk:190.96.40.93. Mapcho (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on my userpage. I had a bit of a queasy feeling about that, and probably should have followed the process. My feeling is, though, that I am blocking the user for edit warring - and this user has been warned repeatedly by me and another editor. I am not blocking the user over a content dispute -- I am trying to engage them in a discussion about that dispute, but they are refusing to participate. The user had engaged in Dispute Resolution then abandoned it when they couldn't get their way. I realise that it would be better form to go through WP:AN3, but I am dealing with someone who does not play well with others, so I am taking what I think is a reasonable step. If this recurs, I will go through AN3. regards, Ground Zero | t 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Princesssamanthakennedy

Hi Jpgordon,

This user is clearly making legal threats on their user page and is using a second account User:PRINCESS SAMANTHA. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not just a second. At least three. Nothing that should be anywhere near Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AGAR2EM1

Not sure if this is a case of trolling or mental issues, but the user has removed my unblock as well as yours. I remove talk paged access due to repeat removals of block responses and comments. Is there any reason to not to close out the current unblock per WP:SNOW? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how I'd characterize it, but looks like it was handled right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Unified Account

Sometime in 2013, you helped me change my user name on Wikipedia from AENLLc to AEN2013. I just recently noticed that the change did not affect the user name on the wiki sister sites. How can I change the username on all the sister sites to AEN2013? I am considering changing my username from AEN2013 to a different one across all platforms. Is that possible?

Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEN2013 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Not my strong point. But it looks like you have to go to every one of the other sites and request a username change there. WP:RENAME might be of some help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Block template

I fixed this for you :-) Thrub (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello this is Hikestents22, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hikestents22, I am not trying to evade my block I just want to talk.

Here is my story I reverted a guy a few times who was changing history and sourced facts, I did not break the 3rr rule or any wikipedia rule, however I should have probably taken it to the discussion page first. I created a 2nd account, with almost the exact same name, to talk to the admin who had blocked me without showing my ip, that was not possible however and I made no edits with that account. Now If you could please talk to me so that we can get this mess straightened out it would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.56.17 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You must not create new accounts and you must not edit without being logged in. The only thing you may do is request unblock on your original user page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request of User:Beastra

On skimming the requests-for-unblock category I came across the request by Beastra. Daniel Case blocked this editor for "spamming" back in September. I've checked the contributions (there are no deleted contributions) and as far as I can see on-wiki, the "spamming" consisted of one edit. In that edit, the user added a link to the BLP of a notable but lesser-known writer, linking to an interview of that writer contained in the editor's personal blog.

Unless I have missed something (I've asked Daniel on his talk to comment, but he is away), I am not sure that this edit was fairly categorized as "spam." We obviously don't want editors whose purpose on-wiki is to add or spam links to their own sites, but the linked blog post was an interview with the BLP subject herself. The link was a useful contribution to the article especially given that all of the other sources were several years old. I am not certain that adding this single link to the article constituted a policy violation. While it might have been better practice to propose the link on the talkpage, this is a lesser-trafficked article and there can be no assurance that such a suggestion would have received a timely response.

More importantly, the single "spam" edit was the user's very first edit. There was no reason to assume that she was familiar with our policies concerning spamming or COI editing. After Xlinkbot reverted the link (presumably because of "Wordpress" in the URL) and advised the editor of the relevant policy and guideline pages, she did not add the link again or do anything else inappropriate. (In fact, she didn't make any other edits at all.) I would not have blocked her based on this limited history.

The other day, this still-new editor posted an unblock request, which you declined because she had not promised to refrain from posting links to her blog. I am not sure that such an absolute and blanket request was necessary, but in any event, she has posted another unblock request in which she gives the assurance you asked of her. Thus, I would welcome your either unblocking her now or confirming that you don't mind if I do. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:BDBJack

Have you seen my comments on this user's talk page? I am inclined to grant the unblock, but don't want to do so without giving you a chance to discuss your opinion on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If it really is the case that this person is the one non-sockpuppet(eer) out of the some 40 accounts on that and related IPs, as recently as April 1, OK; I'm skeptical, but that's purely on technical grounds; several sock accounts per day have been created on that IP, and this one is completely indistinguishable from the others. I find it hard to assume good faith with this background, but if you're comfortable with allowing this account to continue, I won't object. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, honestly. I've spoken with the user on-wiki and on IRC, and have gotten the impression that they have read through our COI policies enough to understand the general idea of what they should and should not do. If they start to edit inappropriately, they can always be reblocked. Thanks for getting back to me; I will unblock now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Erdos Number Edit

This is the URL for the Erdos Number article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number. Try pasting it into your browser. You get a "BAD TITLE" error caused by the character used in his name. This should be fixed. The same is true for his biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.65.201 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You changed plain, unlinked text in the change I reverted; it had nothing to do with the title or URL of anything. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, the link you provide there works just fine, on Firefox; Erd%C5%91s seems to parse correctly.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:LordFixit

Hello, I'm just writing concerning the block of LordFixit as having the sock account of Exposed101. I was involved in the blocking of Exposed101 due to his vandalism and talked with the user during. I have also edited with LordFixit. I'm just curious as to how this decision was made? Their editing patterns were quite different. That said, Exposed101's actions were such extreme vandalism that I understand such a case would warrant the banning of both --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a checkuser. When Exposed101 requested unblock, it felt to me like more than a casual vandal, so I checked to see if he was one of our long-term abusers. Instead, I saw two accounts on one IP editing the same article in a bad hand/good hand fashion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am so disappointed to read that, I thought I respected LordFixit. Thank you for the quick reply though, I'm sorry if this was any trouble Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No trouble at all. And perhaps my analysis is incorrect; if so, he'll request unblock, another checkuser will look at the request, and maybe come to a different conclusion. We double-check each other regularly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wackslas unblock request

Hi Jpgordon, thanks for your input on Wackslas' unblock request. I hope that their second chance won't be abused. Best. Acalamari 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I've placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:Jaimecarballo. You blocked the account in March 2013, and after more than a year I am inclined to give the editor another chance. Any comments? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's OK with me. His request seems honest and sincere. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

TVFAN24

Just giving you a heads up that TVFAN24 has contacted me to lift her block again. I know you were involved before. You can see more info on her talk page.

--WGFinley (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

archaeological seminars COI

hi, wanted to know how come when a term is created with obvious COI problems and the term itself is written off subject it is fine, but when i try to create a normal term for this company i had toured with several times i get flagged as COI??? what the HEII? the term is fifty times better right now and COI is a lazy way to deal with problems in the article! please help me get that tag off by giving me substantial criticism about the COI specific details. i have a feeling that writing a term about a commercial tourism company makes it hard to avoid strict COI rules- what can i do to improve? --Eeya (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. A non-COI approach wouldn't include things like shining reviews from some random Tripadvisor contributor (and that one example use to assert "many participants" say anything at all.) A non-COI approach wouldn't repeatedly mention the individuals who run the company. A non-COI approach wouldn't promote the Facebook page. A non-COI approach would not be written by someone who is part of the company. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wharton vandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/8infinite88 He's back.--Lothwags1 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And you're now blocked for abusing multiple accounts also. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Four minutes allowed for a great deal of in-depth plumbing of the issues on this one, I imagine. But perhaps, like mine, it was simply a clearcut, open and shut case (standard presumption of innocence and expectations of justice notwithstanding). mdr! Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kiko4564 unblock discussion

Hello Jpgordon, sorry to trouble you, but Kiko4564 (a user you have previously blocked, changed the block settings for, or unblocked) has requested to be unblocked. There is a discussion at ANI which so far has attracted no interest, if you wish to leave a comment, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564. Nick (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A new pair of socks

Hello, Josh. In this edit you stated that Sefcik was CheckUser-confirmed as a sockpuppet. I have just blocked two more of the same editors' ducks: Dongbeom and DanielZayn. Interestingly, the second of the pair of accounts was created a few minutes after the first one's user page was tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. I wonder if you would consider doing another CheckUser, in case of more sleepers or other new socks? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now seen another one, already blocked: Delantisco. Both DanielZayn and Delantisco were created while the user still had at least one unblocked sockpuppet available for use, so further sleepers seem likely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dongbeom, who you already got. Nothing else there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for checking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust revision

Hi. Several anonymous IP's are redirecting Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust revision to Functionalism versus intentionalism from time to time. Interestingly, all these IP's are located in Charlottesville, Virginia, which fuels my suspicions that all redirects are done by the same person. Therefore, since it will go too far to ban all IP-users from Charlottesville, could you protect the pages I mentioned above? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, semi-protected. Talk about slow edit warring... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Jeff5102 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

unblock request

snoopy5566 is not kelby2002's sockpupet! one reason is her account was created BEFORE kelby2002 so how can it be a sockpupet? please unblock.The K (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky you're not both blocked. I'd suggest leaving it as it is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If I were Kelby2002, I would be more concerned about avoiding being blocked over abusing talkpages as forum threads or continuing to editwar.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

why is snoopy5566 blocked? because it doesn't have a reason on her user page. is it something beside sock puppetry?The K (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As the block notice says when you attempt to use the account, "abusing multiple accounts"; you need to keep your stories straight. Here you say "I have no idea who [kelby2002] is and I have never met him." At any rate, multiple accounts editing from the same IP and making identical edits are treated as the same person, and if abusive, are blocked accordingly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Patriot Donbassa

Hi, in your decline of his unblock request you said that a CU verified abuse of multiple accounts. Did you do a CU?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's what it means when I say that: checkuser verified by me. Does something seem askew? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, I'd just like to know the result, e.g., who is the master. If you look at the SPI, you'll see that although I blocked PD, I did not make a finding that he was a sock, although I strongly suspected he was. My main uncertainty was the identity of the master. In addition, I asked DoRD to look at it, and I wouldn't want two CU's efforts overlapping. You're already overloaded enough as it is. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

All answered at the SPI. Thanks for your assistance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I missed out on this one. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

LordFixit

I understand that this user was blocked for meat/sock puppetry by you. I wanted to offer to mentor this user as I think they may be a good contributor given a good direction, mentorship, and a second chance. If I'm in the wrong here or doing this wrong let me know :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, I have no opinion regarding whether he should be unblocked; I'm content for other admins to make the call on this one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tilkat block

Is that to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Gupta which is full of meat or sock puppets? Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's where it tickled my nose, yeah -- looking at the unblock request at User talk:Arjun7007. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. New editors making bad edits. Most reverted because they were bad. Could be meat. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Meat right in the same room at the same computer, yah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Can you check this report please?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User: 99.238.74.216

Hello Jpgordon, It appears that the block on the above IP "editor" has had no effect, as today they have again made a mass of "linkrot" edits without giving any reason. I believe that these numerous edits and insulting comments are vandalism and require a much longer block. Your views are welcome. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See also the "contribution" on my Talk page. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref desk troll back, need a checkuser quick check...

Could you look into User:Enzingiyi as a possible reoccurance of the ref desk troll? I'm not a check-user so I can't compare to prior incarnations, but I know you were involved in blocking a bunch of his socks a few weeks ago, like User:K4t84g and User:Lastwine123. Just wanted to see if you could look into this... --Jayron32 20:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems a wee bit trollish, but CU shows nothing of interest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. --Jayron32 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

User:59.41.252.228

Hello. I'm posting here for advice because I don't know what to do at this point, and you have been involved with this user in one of the pages at Alempijević.

For the past 2 months, this user has been persisting in changing redirects from Serbian family names into the current form, of writing that it's a family name and mentioning the former redirect title as 'one of the people with the names.' The user has changed the pages Alempijević, Brajić, Ćesarević, Dokmanović, and Đujić. I have continually reverted the edits, informing the editor on his talk page that the type of pages he's trying to create (I assumed that to be disambiguation) cannot be created for a family-name page with one Wikipedia entry. Since then, the user has accused me of 'vandalizing' - even though I informed them of WP:VAN, used the word 'may' in Category:Redirects from surnames to justify that he could go around changing the pages to his liking, and has since accused me and other editors as being 'Serbophobic' as seen here.

I've attempted to discuss the issue, both with the editor and on my talk page, with no success. More details about the case can be seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#User:59.41.252.228, which has been archived without much discussion. I made a last-ditch attempt after that to post on his talk page, but with no avail. I've been so insistent on this issue since it appears that the user will go around changing all the redirects from Serbian surnames to his liking, according to his posts on my talk page. Please advise on further actions. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 05:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm kinda baffled myself; other than "just keep reverting", I'm not sure what to besides block the IP; I've warned him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I undo the user's edits? KJ ^{«Click Here»} 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but don't edit war. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

I am cancelling my unblock request. I was on a public WiFi hotspot so this is why the IP was the same. I was also doing recent changes patrol. I am not related to the other person. Warrenkychu (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki page Nizari

Not on my talk page, please.
I mean it, please take this elsewhere. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I am faced with a persistent revert attacker reverting all the hard work I do on this page. All that person (Ogress) does is simply revert making no effort to rewrite. They make very subtle personal attacks on me and then pretend to be abused when I reply with any explanation. I'd like you to PLEASE put a halt to this by giving semi-protection to the page in that there should be no reverting war involved but proper editing. The last time around it was purposely done to anger me and then get me to be warned by you - the entire 2 sections were deleted JUST LIKE THAT! Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) If you wish the page semi-protected, make the request at WP:RFPP. I won't respond to any more messages from you THAT CONTAIN SCREAMING AND YELLING, and I'm quite capable of responding either on your talk page or on the relevant article talk pages, should I choose to. I'm not going to help you in your content dispute with Ogress. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I hardly used 6 to 8 words interspersed in caps in a write up of probably about 500 words in my last post on your Talk Page and so I did not know that even that is considered yelling and screaming. I only used them for emphasis. Also, I did not know that you automatically get to see what I write on my Talk page unless you have manually opted to watch my page - and that's what I wanted to know but you still have not told me whether you have opted to Watch my Talk Page or not. Your polite guidance to me could have a gone a long way for both items. I am also not asking you for help with my content but I am asking for help in my dispute with Ogress and there is a huge difference between the two which you well know as an Admin that one involves content development but the other is content protection from improper deleting. What I am asking of you - and very politely - is that you don't favor Ogress by letting her win the revert war simply because all she has to do is use the delete button whereas I put in a back-breaking (literally) amount of time to write even a paragraph with care and research in an environment where blackouts occur every 3 or 4 hours without warning. That's all I demonstrated to you in my last write up to show how a paragraph can be easily messed up to give a completely different picture but you don't seem to care about that at all and seem to favor Ogress just because you have black marked me once for using angry words in all my years here. I only want you to be fair in your admin instead of blindly favoring one side in a revert war without caring to see who is right or wrong and who started it in the first place - surely you owe that to Wiki as an Admin? I had honestly thot of stopping Wiki editing because I am too old to work long hours at the age of 70 and your behavior (more than Ogress' behavior) is making me think again. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Salim, I've read a number of your edit-summaries - some of which could have gotten you blocked. Those aren't "reasoned". They aren't even acceptable for one human to say to another. You see to be lying in a bed that you have created yourself right now the panda ₯’ 00:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for telling me this because clearly I am unaware of how I appear to others on the Wiki from the way you describe my edits. Okay, so what's the solution? I suggest you take a few moments to take a paragraph or two that you have found unacceptable and show me like I have been showing to jpgordon and you and others why I do what I do from the long paras I have written so far. So please reciprocate that favor and show me where I went wrong from a para or two from the Nizari Wiki Page if possible (but not my angry words at Ogress or writing in caps on Talk Pages because I have gotten those messages now from jpgordon and will be careful - ultra careful - about those two things in the future. Your help - and that of jpgordon - in this matter can be crucial to my staying on board the Wiki because I am asking myself now the question: "What is the point of back-breaking toil if anyone can simply arrive on the scene, call themselves a "smasher" and smash things up - unless I am myself writing copy that is utterly unacceptable as you say it is. Thanks and I look forward to your telling me just exactly what you have read on my edits that have made you so displeased with my writing. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Not here, please. I'm not going to help you with your content dispute with Ogress; I have no idea whatsoever who is wrong and who is right, and I don't care. ----jpgordon::==( o ) 06:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) You told me that since I was warned by Ogress not to revert her change then that had made it a second warning to me. She implied that the first warning was from you. Had I reverted her edit then you would have blocked me for sure. Am I correct? So by your threat to me to block me and her threat to me to block me you both together make a team of two and thus have won the day and got me to freeze up from reverting on the Nizari Wiki Page. So then where is the Admin impartiality in the matter? But as you so eloquently say, "... and I don't care." Next you say I am trying to add too much material at one go by reverting Ogress' deletion of two entire articles that had been there for months. But you have conveniently ignored the fact that Ogress had removed at a single click all that much material that was already existing there in the first place! She had simply removed it all including the references! So I am wrong when I try to add back all that was removed by her but Ogress is doing no wrong by deleting in that reckless if not vicious, manner? And then you actually say you don't care as to why it was all removed in the first place by Ogress even tho I tell you why! Next, Panda comes along and tells me that my edit-summaries are completely unacceptable. But how can he not have read Ogress' edit-summaries which makes me respond to her in like manner? I say, okay, please tell me what and where you found it so terrible even if it is just a couple out of the many edits he says he has actually seen. As you can see, Panda has not bothered to reply. Clearly, I would have simply asked him to look at Ogress' edit-summaries a step before mine and then tell me whether they are, as he puts it, "They aren't even acceptable for one human to say to another." I tell you that Ogress lied to you when she reported that I had abused her in some manner and that's why I blew up and used a couple strong words at her hypocrisy and lying. But you simply said on the Nizari talk page that it was not relevant! Clearly, Admin Panda had thought it to be relevant! But now he too has conveniently disappeared from the scene. Isn't best practice relevant to Wiki Admin? After all Wiki goes out of its way on the RFC (Request foe Comments) page to say so to the extent that if it finds out that the commentators have been brought in by any one party to influence the outcome then those comments will be voided. But you are Ogress' best ally on the Nizari Talk Page and you are extremely rude in the way you speak to me by saying "... and I don't care". So may I ask you why you are monitoring the RFC for the Nizari Page and why you will be giving the resulting decision at the end of the discussion? So what do you care about if all you care is to make sure that not only does Ogress have her way on the editing side of the Nizari Page during the discussion and after it you will make sure she gets her way in your decision that will follow. Don't you care that you are so obviously biased in her favor and completely prejudiced against me? I'll put this on the Nizari RFC to see what others think about all this. Next point: I tell Ogress on her Talk Page to tell me the exact words I had used that had initially made her tell me so rudely and brazenly on my User Talk Page that I had abused her. Of course she ignored this request because it would show that she had used the same type of commenting in the same public place! Next point: I give you an example of how an old edit had been changed by Ogress because of her lack of understanding of the word "Imamim-Mubeen" and that I had replaced that paragraph with a new one because I realized that if Muslims like Ogress did not know &/or understand that concept then what to say of everyone else? So I edited a new paragraph in its place and put the word back in. Ogress seems to have accepted it so far - but that's only because her attempt to edit out the aforesaid word (Mubeen) as a useless appendage that it had alerted me to the need for an explanatory type of paragraph to explain its meaning. But these types of paragraphs are extremely hard to source. Next: when I told you on your Talk Page why such information from oral sources (hymns and epistles) is extremely difficult to source [which Ogress makes a point to emphasize every time she deletes something by calling it either unsourced, or "outdated references" (what the heck does "outdated references" mean?) or "essay writing"] you rudely told me not to bother you on your Talk Page. Can't you be polite when you are supposed to be a mentor on Wiki? Here below is the concerned paragraph so that now you will hopefully see that it is very relevant indeed to the RFC and the way Ogress works to remove things (which is easier to do) and the way I work to add things (which is much, much harder to do): The Nizari Ismaili tradition is unique in that it is the only tradition that bears witness to the continuity of the hereditary divine authority vested in the Imamim-Mubeen. In all the Sunni traditions, the Imamim-Mubeen is interpreted as the Quran itself; and in all the Shia traditions except the Shia Nizari tradition it is interpreted as the last Imam of a dynasty who went into occultation. However, in Nizari Ismailism, it is interpreted as a living human Imam who is never ever in occultation and who will never ever be absent from this world but will always be perpetually present and physically alive designated as the inheritor of the Imamat from father to son. This tradition has continued over 1400 years from Ali to the present Imam-of-the-Time, Prince Karim al-Hussaini Aga Khan, the 49th hereditary Imam and direct descendant of Mohammad through Ali and Zahra. Next you tell me off that I yell at you even tho it was about 7 words in 500 used as emphasis. Couldn't you have simply said, "Hey Salim, don't use the upper case at all because it is considered yelling," and I would have been mentored in the etiquette of the letters usage. Instead you behaved as if a red flag had been shown to a bull and after that nothing else in my post to you mattered except the red that was now before your eyes because of a simple error in the use of the caps. Do you at all realize that your own behavior is unforgivable? Last point: I looked up Panda's Talk Page and lo and behold, I saw that Panda also behaves in the same way you do because there is a post there from a person (I think it was "Mindy" or some such name) and she actually told Panda that altho he had supported her in her contention with another person, it was wrong to block him because in fact she had realized from the man's appeal to her that the fault had been hers to begin with. My goodness! Panda had blocked a poor fellow from the page in question and was least bothered to look into the matter when appealed to (just like you!) and it took the woman called Mindy to reverse Panda's decision and unblock the fellow by accepting her own mistake without anyone's pressure on her! What a great person and what a poor showing of Admin ability to monitor best practice on Wiki. Therefore, may I ask what do you care about and what is it you are monitoring on the Nizari Talk Page? Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "As you can see, Panda has not bothered to reply" ... bullshit, I replied on my talkpage long before you posted this here. Mindy? Who the heck is Mindy reversing what decision? What exactly are you talking about ... you're making no sense. Please provide a link or something to whatever you're talking about. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC) How can I know what you write on your talk page? Aren't you supposed to write on my Talk Page or in reply to me on jpgordon's page? As it is he discourages everyone from writing on his Talk Page. I checked your Talk Page and the item I referred to has gone - either your bot has deleted it or archived it automatically. If you really want to find the item then look into your most recent archives. I suggest you post on my talk page from now on because I am not watching your page. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not required to notify you that I replied - YOU are required to monitor your conversations if you're expecting a reply. So, if you're not willing to provide a LINK or WP:DIFF to what you're talking about, you're required to retract your statement about whoever "Mindy" is. I always recommend <s> strikethrough </s> the panda ₯’ 20:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I did not write anything on your page and therefore I had no need to watch your page. Also you can easily delete stuff on your talk page and I suggest you back off because I believe you have done that and are now harassing me. If you continue to harass me then I shall take you and this matter of deleting stuff on your talk page and then blaming me for pointing out the truth about one of your blocking adventures to an Admin superior to you. It should not be difficult for them to look into your history and dig out "Mindy" or whoever when I describe the circumstance. How the heck would I have known about it if it was there for everyone to read on your talk page?? Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Here is what my talkpage looked like after you edited it, and before things were archived automatically by a bot. Please point out this "blocking adventure" you're speaking of. Really, I'm waiting. the panda ₯’ 21:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please protect WZ-10 page from Pvpoodle

Hello Jpgordon, I am Jon, the original contributor to the WZ-10 attack helicopter page, recently the page has came under attack by Pvpoodle. He repeatedly edited the page using his own personal opinions and old sources which came from western news media, he claimed that they are multiple sources but they are not, they all contain the same materials and were all written from March,7th, 2013 to March, 8th, 2013. Just three month after the Chinese first officially revealed the WZ-10 to the general public. The sources he posted have since then been debunked by Chinese and Russian news media and Kamov's chief designer have recanted his words, yet Pvpoodle keep trying to push it through. Another user named Shulinjiang attempted to debunk Pvpoodle's relentless acts by providing more update Chinese and Russian sources. Yet Pvpoodle did not stop. He keep posting destructive and derogatory comments and even attempt to change the page's chief designer whom was indeed Wu Xingming to Kamov! The page has become a personal battle ground for Pvpoodle.

I have spoke to The_Last_Arietta a Wikipedian about this issue and he allowed me to revert Pvpoddle's destructive eddits but he is not an admin. I really suspect that once Pvpoodle is unbanned, he will return again to keep editing Wikipedia pages in his own way without any regard to truth or not. He has shown a personal pattern of doing so in the past and was proven on the "2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish" page. It was literally his own battle ground.

I am the original contributor on the WZ-10 page, having spend hours if not days making constructive materials and you can see that the page was well written and described in details, backed up with more creditable Chinese sources and even pictures. I did this not for any reward but just for the better good of Wikipedia. Please, if you can protect the WZ-10 page from Pvpoodle ever making disruptive edits again. It will be much appreciated.

Thank you

64.134.160.102 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Jon

I don't see any indication you've actually attempted to discuss this on the article talk page, which is always what you should do first when in conflict with another editor. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

this guy not an original contributor to the article. edit history reveals no one by the name jon. he links he provides to "debunk my claims" are actually chinese versions of the same news reports i have cited. the chief designer has not actually recanted anything. he mentioned that kamov was involved in the design and to quote him directly "I know what I have done" from flightglobal. both the news report and the wiki article on z-10 both mention clearly that while the design is kamov's all further development work is chinese. i believe this preserves npov as it is only mentioning the news. however the same user has been sock puppetting with multiple ips and adding whatever he pleases and removing sourced infomation without any explanation or without any valid reference in an attempt to spread his own propaganda while making ad-hominem attacks against me personally. he does not discuss anything on talk, however edits others content to make it look like they are saying something else on talk. you may wish to check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang and help me stop this vandalism. thank you Pvpoodle (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:AppleBloke

Regarding the CU results: is AppleBloke connected to Suburban99, or an entirely different user? I declined an unblock request from Suburban99 assuming that was the case, but wanted to be sure. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

CU suggests it is Bananaman321. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Sir! Thank you for accepting my unblock request. I can never be an apostle of nonsensical exercise. I have no reason to use multiple account. One of my mission on wikipedia is to Fight against Vandalism and any form of COI (Wikicology (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)) Thanks for telling me.

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP editor is unblocked?

I see you and DoRD blocked this IP editor ([15]) but the block was only for 2 hours. I wanted to double check that this was correct, especially in light of their recent edits since being unblocked. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added "cannot edit talk page"; I didn't even notice the length of the block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I think that you misread the block log - I blocked the IP for one month. Jpgordon's modification of the block was two hours after my block, leaving the duration at a month. In light of the resumed vandalism, I have blocked it again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

DoRD and Jpgordon - I did indeed misread it. Sorry about that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

IseeEwe

Also pinging Bishonen - It would appear that he has a malformed request for unblock on his page now (looks like he copied code, but doesn't really understand it enough to diagnose the problem perhaps; not quite sure ...). Either way, I am inclined to unblock him at this time, noting however that he is on an incredibly short leash and should seek to make extra effort to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:EW, etc. Any objection? Go Phightins! 17:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No objection, but I'm not the blocking admin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

RIght; he said he was OK with another admin overturning his block, but I also wanted to check with you, as you declined the first unblock request. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'm all right with it. Not sure that's a malformed request for unblock, though... it does start "This is not a request to be unblocked". And they had no problem using the template the first time. (And even then, and even though the block notice explained the purpose of the template, they mysteriously claimed they hadn't requested unblock.) And you see how the user says "I am proud to be blocked" higher up on the page? But perhaps these oddities are merely indirect expressions of pride, and not worth getting stuck on. Whatever, I'll completely leave it to you, anyway. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

OK - I had noticed that he noted it wasn't a request to be unblocked ... at the same time, my counterpoint would be that if the ultimate goal is a stable article, the block is not really serving the encyclopedia if it serves to entrench him and "martyr" him as a victim. So I will unblock. Thanks for your input, and of course a re-block may be necessary, but we shall see. Best, Go Phightins! 20:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Particle Fever may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Andrea Miller, Carla Solomon<ref>http://www.imdb.com/company/co0264943/ </ref> and Wendy Sax<ref>[http://movingstoriesinc.com/ </ref>. The team gathered nearly 500 hours of footage from both

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

hoping that this isn't too much

Thanks for reiterating your support at the anti(-)Semitism discussion. Rightly or wrongly I tend to reserve judgement on contributors until the end of discussions. I also agree that the WP:COMMONNAME should be instantly conclusive. It should have carried at a previous occasion. Gregkaye (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Monterey Pop Festival

Excuse me can I ask why u are tampering with accurate backed up information about that Jefferson airplanes performance and the Monterey international pop festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMC201414 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 August 2014‎

Here's the sequence you inserted:They were backed by a backdrop by the headlights who did the light shows at the Fillmore in SF. Grace Slick joined the band in 1966 the monterey international pop festival was the first major concert she performed with jefferson airplane since her departure from her former band the great society, she wore the major style of the "rich hippies" which was the traditional Moroccan kaftan the same style worn by Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and Papas at the same festival following the release of the concert film Monterey Pop kaftans sold out in stores nationwide and became the style synonymous with the 60s. Their setlist included some of their well known hits along with some of their back catalog and is considered as one of the top performances at the three day festival at the end of their set they were "showered by orchids as they left the stage" said Michael Lydon reporting for Newsweek on site at the Monterey fairgrounds. If it's accurate, if it's backed up, then of course you can provide proper reliable sources. It would also be a good thing to learn about proper writing; capitalization and sentence structure is important. I can't make any sense out of the first sentence ("backed by a backdrop by the headlights"? whatever could that mean?) The other two sentences perhaps should be five or six sentences. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

YGM. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

I apologise for apparently stepping on your toes in denying unblock requests of checkuser blocks. I had no wish to interfere in procedure, and will leave them alone in future. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's not interfering in procedure -- it just seems like a waste of your time is all. And, yeah, most of the time those get denied, but they have the side effect of causing us to double-check checkuser results, which keeps us all honest. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Notwillywanka

There is a request at WP:RMTR to move User talk:Notwillywanka/delete back to the normal talk page location. This is straightforward but it needs a history merge. I'll do this if you don't object, or you can proceed with the merge yourself. I was going to move-protect the talk page after finishing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, so go right ahead. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Explain revert

You revreted a change I made with no explanation. I'd like one. Thanks.

I would note that as the article stands now it at the very least requires a citation because the article given as a citation both refutes the generalization in the statement *and* wasn't written during Kwanzaa. Kevin Lyda (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the citation as given also does not include the phrase "right wing Americans". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabascoman

This response is far too dismissive. Gamaliel, who blocked Tabasco, and Dreadstar, who declined the second unblock request, are both WP:INVOLVED regarding the relevant topic area with Gamaliel being personally involved regarding the editor in question. Your statement that merely copied Dreadstar's is not even correct as Tabasco did address the edit in question. An unblock request should not be reviewed with such flippant language even if you find the editor's request aggravating.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are an idiot

You didn't find my changes constructive because you are a cheese dick. Legality and scheduling a substance are two different things airhead. The DEA isn't allowed to make up its own laws. Arguing that it is allowed to do so because people who sold the drug claiming it to be heroin have been successfully prosecuted only supports my claim on why they were successfully prosecuted had to do with what they were doing and not a result of possessing acetylfentanyl. But I don't expect half the morons that contribute to this train wreck of a website to actually provide correct contributions. Go give yourself a pat on the back for making the idiots who think wikipedia is a good "source" of information that much stupider. Or maybe you just want that so you have company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.10.247 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to put personal opinions in articles. Neither do I. Your "claim" is irrelevant without reliable sources. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxisol

Hello, I am very sorry to disrupt, but I'm not exactly sure where I would go with this. I was looking for checkusers and found you on the list. You most likely know more on this subject than I do. If you look at the revision history [16] you will notice that 3 IP addresses have vandalized today, and they are very similar. 205.122.7.140, 205.122.7.141, ‎ 205.122.7.142. I'm not an expert with computers, so I'm not sure what this means. I just know that it would appear to be the same range. They seemed to have stopped so not really an emergency. I'm not requesting a checkuser report on them (since I have no evidence), I just wish to know what they are, how to tell what they are, and what I should do if I ever come across IP addresses like that again. -Kanashimi Hyoketsu 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I applied a range block that should stop it for a bit. Let me know if it starts up again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 18:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryzecoa

Hello, I see you declined the unblock request for Ryzecoa (talk · contribs). He's now using his 31.205.67.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP to bypass the block and vandalise my Talk page. Could you please deal with him? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you JMHamo (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again.. 109.246.84.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is being used to vandalise my User page and evade your block. Could you please deal with? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What a pest. Blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Block one, up pops another

See Special:Contributions/Nick_"Badass"_Pouki for evidence that another editor has popped up to replace the one you blocked at Special:Contributions/Natalie_"Cameron_Diaz"_Koehler. Thanks for your hard work! Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What a pest! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

San Roberta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/San_Roberta

I have opened another investigation. You might wanna take a look. I have come across you on Johnny C***s talk page which I looked at while looking at the revision history of article Bangkok. Since you have said it is the same person as "San Roberta" I think you might be familiar with this case. Thanks! TChemB (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Josh:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

User talk:Bishopssix

Thanks. I saw the unblock request, and came this close to removing it myself, but thought better of it. Bishonen | talk 00:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

unblock request denial

RE this edit. A bit of a formality, but you forgot to add your reason. Meters (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Signature issue on Holocaust edit

Thanks for removing it, I tried several times to get rid of if from the text, but had to rush off. Not sure what happened, first time it happened to me. --Joel Mc (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Happens. Yr welcome. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent unblock decline

Does this remind you of anyone? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oy... ha, i hadn't read his most recent. I don't think I've ever been called a "catamite" before. At least, not as an insult. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Or for that matter, a "cupbearer of Jupiter". He just called me Ganymede! How utterly...classical. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff! My suspicion is that it's probably a trolling account... but then again, it could be sincere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo

How on earth can your edit be seen as racism? You are merely keeping the language neutral and therefore more appropriate for an encyclopedia. LynwoodF (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Beats me! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can too!

I have the right to use BC/AD dates if I want. Our whole calender is based on the birth of christ like it or not so BC as in BEFORE CHRIST has always been used so why use some stupid new version? Wikipedia allows both versions but only BC/AD is correct in my eyes and I will continue to edit any wikipedia pages I come acrross that use BCE/CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haweythetoon (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:BCE; our manual of style overrides your particular preference. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits after recent block expiration

This guy --188.158.56.56 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Scars of battle

You beat me to the button - but I like your wording. I thought I was hitting him hard... 8-) Peridon (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Inquiry

User:Mystifiedacre is a colleague of mine who is helping me work on articles related to Batala Mundo and BatalaNYC. I do not know who User:Batabatala. BatalaMaestro (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guitar_tunings 14:24, 2 February 2015 Edit Source

Hi Jpgordon, My source for my edit was my own research into the subject. I used the formula for the minor pentatonic scale which is 1,3,4,5,7 of the minor scale (you can Google that on the net for source) to calculate an E minor pentatonic scale. This had a result of E, G, A, B, D, E which is matches perfectly all the notes of Standard Tuning though the order isn't correct. Once you reorder the scale it comes out to E, A, D, G, B, E which is Standard Tuning.

For reference, a Minor E scale consists of E, F#, G, A, B, C, D, E. The minor pentatonic scale formula (1,3,4,5,7) applied to the E minor scale would be E, F#, G, A, B, C, D, E <- this is in the second octave, there for this would be considered per the formula as 1 as well. I am sorry I didn't give a source in the first place and I will be better about that next time. -SGA314 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My source for my edit was my own research into the subject. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy of no original research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack on you by user Bryce Carmony

In case he reverts it before you've had a chance to see it, you should note this edit. andy (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a page patrolling issue

Dear Jpgordon, I'm a new page patroller. While going through the newly created pages, I encountered this page User talk:Fatemi127 which is showing in new pages feed but no review option is coming along with it. No other editor is also looking at it and I do not know what to do with it. Please have a look and take necessary action or advise me what to do next. Thank you, Mr RD 18:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime

Thanks[17], although I have just looked at the previous accounts and found a lot of similarities. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. Consider checking your email there is one more riddle. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

SueEllenArmstrong

Hi, you blocked SueEllenArmstrong (talk · contribs) as a sock - what do you think about ArthurRead1997 (talk · contribs), particularly their first edit? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Smalljim (talk · contribs) has now blocked ArthurRead1997. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

... and ArthurRead1996 (talk · contribs), as an obvious sock.  —SMALLJIM  17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup alls yup. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well …

You wouldn't have noticed me on the WELL; I used it only for mail and News. —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tend to the sick and leave the WELL alone."--Mr Fink (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous hacker moving around

Thanks; I'll keep this in mind when I see relevant activity.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want AHLM13 to be unblocked but lots of proxy IPs and socks are launching personal attacks posing as Undertrialryryr socks and AHLM13 socks. Three times my account was logged off even though i didn't click log out. I changed the password and disconnected my net connection;after that it stopped. I am telling you: if in future, I post offensive derogatory messages on people's talk pages,then please make sure that my E-Mail address that i have registered is not changed.That's the only way i can regian my account . AHLM13 claimed he was hacked or he had BROTHER. I don't know about him but even @Mar4d: and @Lukeno94: is doubting about this hacker in ANI. I have reasons to believe all these cases mentioned below are inter-related: A)- In this SPI DoRD mentioned "ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master." Technically they were not matching with Undertrialryryr. And i found their editing very different from the previous accounts.Vanjagenije accepted he was not sure but they were tagged "Based on the behavior". B)- AHLM13's account abused Babitaarora in the same mannerকসমিক এম্পারার attacked her, {私はあなたにを愛し did the same thing, unknown ip, another Undertrialryryr sock C)- Now today these three proxy IPs disrupted talkpages claiming to be AHLM13, but AHLM13 doesn't speak like that. AHLM13 is Pakistani. How can he use Bengali swear words and Bengali colloquial language. I- 27.34.251.164 II- 49.156.159.82 III- 14.139.56.13 Now check the last line of this offensive comment on Titodutta's talk page by কসমিক এম্পারার which is very similar to this edit made today by 14.139.56.13 . Those who can read Bengali will understand that they are same. All three are proxy IPs, as i checked them on internet IP Location finder and they must be blocked indefinitely, not for few hours or one week. D)- Same guy who removed Babitaarora's complain on Materialscientist's talk page about Undertrialryryr socks. I am sure this is not Undertrialryryr. E)- Unblock request by 115ash is the same comment he made on Ged UK's talk page with IP-78.149.203.69, and this IP is similar to this IP-78.149.127.141 which we believe is AHLM13 as we found that his English is similar to AHLM13. F)- If we check the contributions of Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000, Enterths300000, Whistlingwoods, Championkiller and vandal account BLACKIEHINDU They don't match with the contributions and editing style of these sock accounts in other languages. কসমিক এম্পারার (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) زوردانلگهتر (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) זאָרדאַנליגהטער (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ლანგუაგეხპერტ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 私はあなたにを愛し (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ДфтпгфпуЧзуке (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) หทหฟพทฟก (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ਜੋਰਦਾਨਲਿਘ੍ਟਰ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) কসমিক এম্পারার (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) زوردانلگهتر (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) জোর্দানলাইটার (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) later on few socks whose names were in Punjabi language attacked Babitaarora. Their offensive comments and edit history were deleted by Materialscientist,Yunshui and Albertsquare. They were tagged as Undertrialryryr socks. I don't know whether the Ips were same or most obviously the same reason previous socks were blocked due to behavioral evidence. Once DoRD told me that personal details of any user can't be made public which includes IP address, but Check user should at least tell whether these latest sockaccounts : ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ, Lundbaaz King Shaan Shahid, Pakistani girl's breasts, ਬਬੀਤਾ ਦੇ ਪਤੀ and ਕਾਸ੍ਮਿਕ ਏਮ੍ਪੇਰੋਰ matches with the IPs of Undertrialryryr, ZORDANLIGHTER, Blackwizard2000, or they match with unconfirmed socks written in other languages.C E (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13

Thanks. Your belief about the WP:BROTHER matches my own. I appreciate the faith you've shown towards them and hope it's rewarded, at least as well as they can. Sigh, and given the grief and trouble that comes from them on occasion, I still can't totally understand why I support them. Here's hoping though! Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jpgordon, since you were the one to unblock him, you might want to look in at this discussion on ANI. Looks like AHLM13 is having difficulties with reverting and mislabeling edits in an edit war as vandalism. He might be continuing some of his same issues after your unblock. only (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi JP. Could you please have a look at AHLM13's latest edits? Either the "brother" has returned, or this user is not worthy of any more good faith. Favonian (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Either way, this merits an immediate block. - NQ (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's it! I have sent the person, or his extended family, back to the sin bin. I don't think I can recommend unblocking. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi admin. I sent you an email. Please read it. --2.96.186.92 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is AHLM3, no thank you; you'll need to find another sucker. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ravensfire and User:OccultZone, but I am not a a sockpuppet of those accounts, plaese see the ANI, where people are supporting me. So far I did some Ip edits and created just one account (AHLM85), but just for to let know people that I am innocent. Regarding you Admin JPGORDON, can you tell me what can i do? I am alone and I have nowhere to go. Hackers or vandals are not stopping to create account, and some people think that those are me. I tried to do " unblock requests system (UTRS)", but they sent an email by telling me that now is too late, as I was not a user who registered as LIFE COMMITTED IDENTITY (or something like this). What do i need to do, as I am innocent. It is true that I have to be careful my wiki account's security, but I changed my password and still hacker log on. I contacted some check users, but they are not answering me. What can I do? Can someone unblock me as I have done nothing bad. I promise that I will be more careful regardless of my account. But if the hacker log in on my account again, then I promise that I will leave wikipedia. But can another chance be given to me? Even other users (those invilved in ANI) are having problems with their accounts. Thanks. --78.149.119.13 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please help

I got logged off once again--C E (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever makes you think there's anything I can do about it? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, how are you, as regard to the flags added to the article, i have put the name of the country next to the , as i see not everyone is familiar with that countries flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.159.16 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Although not contemporary with the manuel of style, you will see many article have them now, just for identification purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.159.16 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Also could you please let me know if you are not happy with my edits, by writing on the talk page first ,and not just revert, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.159.16 (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I will continue to correct articles to conform with WP:MOS; thus, your infobox flags will be removed every time, without exception, unless the meet the limited set of circumsstances allowing their use. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean NO Infobox should include flags, if there is one or more with flags, can you give me an example WHERE it should be used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.159.16 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:INFOBOXFLAG; it spells it out quite clearly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Columbus did not know Italian

Talk page now has points for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cliff Edwards

Hi Jpgordon, I wanted to explain why I undid your edit at Cliff Edwards. The lede was half-devoted to his troubled personal life, yet that section makes up a very small part of the article body, and it is not his troubled personal life for which he is known. I did not remove this part of the lede, but I agree with the IP editor who did. It also undid a dab change I had made. I hope that sufficiently explains my rationale. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Is good. I tend to automatically revert blanking done w/o comment by unregistered users; 9 times out of 10 it is either a test or trivial vandalism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I truly understand that! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blast from the Past

You previously did the following blocks for sockpuppets [18], [19],and possibly some of these others [20]. A new request for a sockpuppet investigation [21] has been initiated on the same issues and the same article (Leo Frank). That investigation is going nowhere and I have been advised by another administrator that the behavioral aspects may be too complex to be accepted. In any event, with the opening of an RFC on the Frank discussion page, the similarities between Machn, GingerBreadHarlot, the current IP, and even another user (Gulbenk) seem clear and their postings have accelerated since the referral was made. In any event, it seems like you are in a better position than most to wade in and make a determination if you should so choose. Thanks for any attention you devote to this. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks of User:ITMI Gallows, User:InovaITMI, and User:ITMI company

Hi, I've got info from these guys in OTRS that appears relevent to their blocks. Do you have access? If not do you mind me passing it to an admin who does to review? Amortias (T)(C) 16:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, no OTRS form. Pass it on. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

On GBH's latest sock

Nice of them to confirm. I actually wasn't sure before. :-) Bishonen | talk 20:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

SPI Notification

I mentioned you in this SPI for User:CaptainHog. I am hoping to get a checkuser done to see if he has any sleeper accounts. Since you were mentioned, I am just letting you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Section Blanking

Hello User:jpgordon,

You recently unblocked an IP address 141.217.233.69 that I requested because I was going through some history and noticed that particular IP was blocked (You said it wasn't but still unblocked for sake of me asking) and it had a lengthy talk page. I no longer use that IP and have a registered account. You can see from my history that I have had sock puppet issues in the past but I have been doing the right thing after being unblocked. I do not believe I violated any Wikipedia policy but I was just cleaning that talk page which I used. If that is not okay, please let me know. For times sake, I have undid it to show that I really mind that stuff there or should I just archive those unblock request and talk page discussions on my talk page. There is a user name kapil.xerox who I have had issues with in the past regarding a group called BAPS. That user is trying to get me blocked again for this issue and accusing me of sock puppetry when I have not done anything wrong and trying to use my section blanking as evidence to block me because he disagrees with any criticism towards their group. In particular recently, for the article titled Akshardham Delhi (a monument made by BAPS), he recently popped out of no where to try to remove legitimate sourced by over a dozen environmental criticisms regarding the monument. Please see [22] and the talk page [23]. When I updated the books for the citations and added several more citations, he contacted another admin as you see here to [24] to remove me from Wikipedia. I believe this is not okay especially since this user has a severe conflict of interest in this subject who also was blocked when I was going through my issues. I hate taking up time on these issues and there are bigger fish to fry here but would please take a look at this because it is getting frustrating. Swamiblue (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea what you want me to do. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking back it turns out to be a rant then actual questions. These are my two questions:

Am I violating any rule by that can result in blocking if I blank out the user pager for the IP address 141.217.233.69?

Would you talk a look at the Akshardham (Delhi) article because if the environmental part is properly allow to be there? I am being accused of edit warring with the environmental part when the users have not reached consensus and majority are apart of that group to portray their sect in only a positive light. Here is it: [25]

Thank you again

Swamiblue (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Blanking the page was a bit unusual, but is perfectly allowable. There were no active blocks on the IP, and there was no current activity to hide. I've addressed the Akshardham article on its talk page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sinistershadows block

Feel free to override and extend the block if you think it's necessary. I just went with a generic length for a first-time block. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, jpgordon. On August 7, 2010, User:Round the Horne moved Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden to CIA–al-Qaeda controversy (diff). Four days later, you blocked him/her for abusing multiple accounts (diff). I am wondering if you might reverse this move. I believe the move to be uncontroversial in that the previous title is actually the more descriptive of the two per the article's content and lede sentence. Let me know if you prefer that I take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be able to do that yourself. Let me know if not, but I think any confirmed user can undo a page move just by moving it again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Given that Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden still exists, I get the error message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." If you delete it to make way for the move, then I'm happy to take care of it. - Location (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Location (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:212.120.243.218

I've just orphaned the template {{Gibraltarian}} per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:Gibraltarian, which involved a couple of hundred 212.120.x.x IPs. The only IP still affected is User talk:212.120.243.218 which is an indefinite block. If 9 years is long enough for {{Gibraltarian}} to become "Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors." is 6 years time enough to reconsider that block?

I don't care either way, I just hate to leave a job half-done. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like indef blocks on IPs, anyway. So, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Daniel Case as the only other admin (who's still an admin) involved in this block. Bazj (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj:I have no objection to lifting it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, would either of you (Daniel Case, Jpgordon) care to do the honours? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. And you really don't have to ping people on their own talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. It just felt wrong writing "either of you" followed by one name. Thanks for doing the job. Bazj (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, jpgordon. On August 7, 2010, User:Round the Horne moved Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden to CIA–al-Qaeda controversy (diff). Four days later, you blocked him/her for abusing multiple accounts (diff). I am wondering if you might reverse this move. I believe the move to be uncontroversial in that the previous title is actually the more descriptive of the two per the article's content and lede sentence. Let me know if you prefer that I take this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! - Location (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be able to do that yourself. Let me know if not, but I think any confirmed user can undo a page move just by moving it again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Given that Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden still exists, I get the error message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." If you delete it to make way for the move, then I'm happy to take care of it. - Location (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

OK done. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Location (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:212.120.243.218

I've just orphaned the template {{Gibraltarian}} per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:Gibraltarian, which involved a couple of hundred 212.120.x.x IPs. The only IP still affected is User talk:212.120.243.218 which is an indefinite block. If 9 years is long enough for {{Gibraltarian}} to become "Likely to tarnish innocent anon editors." is 6 years time enough to reconsider that block?

I don't care either way, I just hate to leave a job half-done. Regards, Bazj (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like indef blocks on IPs, anyway. So, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Daniel Case as the only other admin (who's still an admin) involved in this block. Bazj (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj:I have no objection to lifting it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, would either of you (Daniel Case, Jpgordon) care to do the honours? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. And you really don't have to ping people on their own talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. It just felt wrong writing "either of you" followed by one name. Thanks for doing the job. Bazj (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible Administrator intervention?

Dear Jpgordon, I am hereby requesting your possible intervention over the highly controversial Planned Parenthood Talk Page[26], specially the last few posts, where we have seen a lot of edit warring and even insults (lobbied at me, quite the new user around here by a long-time Editor) I am sorry of this seems like a cold call but after searching for a way to contact Administrators, I found "alexz's tools" and it showed me, by order of recent activities, "Admins willing to make difficult blocks". You were the second one in the list, thus I am trying to contact you (I decided on skipping Nihonjoe since he seemed to have quite the pointed interest on Japan and Anime, which is perfectly fine, but you seemed to have a more "general" experience (proof: [27]))

I am sorry if this is inappropriate of me, to ask of you to intervene. I do not know who is the "main" Administrator overseeing said controversial Talk Page.

Note: Is there anything I can do besides complain on the insulting editors own Talk Page? Source: Established editor JBL insulting me: [28].

Thanks for your time. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything requiring a "difficult block", or any other sort. I don't see any edit warring (if there is that, please report it at WP:AN3. There are no "main administrators", and administrators don't "oversee" talk pages, or anything of the sort. Leave me out of this; the other editors at that talk page can handle it just fine. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)