User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

user gu1dry

As someone who has previously blocked both myself and gu1dry, I was wondering if you could take a look at the problem I am currently having with gu1dry.

There was a 3RR report, which was seemingly resolved with a suggestion that we discuss the issue.

This seemed to solve the problem for about a week until gu1dry decided to start removing the cited information that he didn't agree with again.

I really don't wish to get drawn into another editwar, and would appreciate some 3rd party advice on what to do next. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Scarletspeedster7

Regarding this unblock decline, you may want to note that their alternate account Scarletspeedster007 (talk · contribs) added the request for unblock.--kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism article

Albanian nationalism fall into the area covered by ARBMAC, and is created 95% by the same Greek author Megistias. I raised the issue on NOR noticeboard and the admin agreed that it is WP:OR, also I called for Third Opinion, he also agreed it was WP:OR (this was among his comments - for further read Talk:Albanian nationalism). I did not want to engage in edit-waring, discussion has lost meaning (see the talk page). I really think this user should be topic-banned or at least explained that what he is doing is against ARBMAC. I believe this page needs a fresh view from a NPOV admin. Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As shown in the Original research board it is you that has made a mistake Anna.Your accusations are insubstantial.Megistias (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the OR board its shown that you pretended that whole referenced sections of the article did not exist and you made other claims like linking a different source than the one given.And so on.Megistias (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise, but I'm quite unfamiliar with these pages. I would suggest discussing potential violations at Arbitration Enforcement. Thanks for your understanding. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting protection for the Lamborghini article

The article on Lamborghini is plagued with vandals. The last 50 revisions, from 19 September to date, have been either vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. This is largely done by unregistered users, including 206.210.146.194, 204.69.115.57, 200.34.109.15 and 207.71.4.178

You had placed the article under semi-protection before. I ask if you would assess the situation at the article to see if it might need semi-protection again, and, if it does, for how long.

I have been told that the article on Ferrari is in a similar state, and so I ask if you could assess that one as well.

I thank you for your time and consideration and apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Sincerely, SamBlob. No signature (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is that-a way :) — neuro 14:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I shall request there. Sincerely, SamBlob. No signature (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For unblocking my autoblock :) Scribner (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have ACC account but it seems lacking Account creator permission

Hi Peter,

You may remember me from this past May. I had my account hijacked during a change of username and was indefinitely blocked. You reviewed it per my request made via IRC. (User:Jh0367)

Anyways, this would be my original account that i had set up in 2006 and spent time on and off over 3 years trying to gain access to because i forgot which of my dozens of email addresses i had used in registering. I finally did gain access a little while ago. Last week i requested and was granted an ACC account.[1] It seems however that i do not have account creator permission to go along with it.[2] My attempt to reach the approving admin via email has so-far not resulted in a response. You were helpful last time so i thought i would ask you if you can assign the account creator permission for User:Deliriousandlost. Cheers. delirious & lost (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin who approved my ACC account got back to me. He added the account creator permission. Cheers. delirious & lost (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne socks

Thanks for reinstating the IP blocks. That fellow's been on a real tear lately and perhaps that will slow him down a bit. And thanks more generally for the quick blocks in response to my reports. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) It won't stop him completely (a couple of cases were {{confirmed}} while those blocks were still active). However, it will hopefully slow him down, as you say. Thanks for your reports. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mdphd2012

I see that an editor user:Mdphd2012 was blocked for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdphd2012. However, I don't see a warning at the editor talk page about the SPI or about the block. If it were an ordinary warning, I would just add it, but I seem to remember that mere mortals are not to put block messages up, even if they are real... not sure about that, but it seems presumptuous and I didn't do it. If this is a silly message, please accept my apologies. Thanks for doing the admin thing. - Sinneed 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Gaza War of 2009

Can you please advise me what to do. Based on my response at wikiquette alerts, a user (mr unsigned anon) asked me to investigate the issue further. Please help! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(He followed this question up on IRC, and I advised that, if he doesn't understand or doesn't feel able to intervene in a dispute, he should withdraw from the dispute entirely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Lynngerhardt

The person behind expressscripts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has changed her user name to Lynngerhardt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in an attempt to remedy the problem with her user name being the same as the business she is doing public relations work for. I have been counseling her about conducting public relations work in accordance with our guidelines and am asking that the second account be unblocked, provided her editing conforms to our guidelines. Fred Talk 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Lynngerhardt (talk · contribs) has been unblocked, as has the autoblock. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Information

Hello.

First, my English is very bad, sorry.

Checking if user Auslli news right now is in Spain I have seen this contribution may be of interest.

I emphasize that I'm not that IP, but I think what's of interest shown.

Furthermore, the user has been blocked Auslli Wikipedia in Spanish by Nazi (See: Wikipedia España, bloqueo usuario:Auslli ).

Sorry for the inconvenience but I think this information might be of interest.--FCPB (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was that he saw this comment.--FCPB (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

hello

why did you delete all my userpage things - kingmachado

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:NOT. Your userspace isn't a personal space to store made-up nonsense; it is to be used in accordance with the user page guidelines. Please don't recreate those, or similar, pages again. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

is there anyway i can get the articles back to recover for use. I spent many hours on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmachado (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, vandalism is not restored. Please do something more constructive with your time in future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to get them to put on Unyclopedia. Don't have to give me a god damn warning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingmachado (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Uncyclopedia contributions on Uncyclopedia. This is Wikipedia. The warning stands; if you continue your disruption, you will be blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flotilla DeBarge closure

Hi. May I ask you to elaborate on the rationale by which you closed as delete? The discussion is split exactly in half between keep and delete to my count, and the keep endorsers (like me) pointed to the fact that there is repeated coverage of sources for several events in a wide period of time -it is quite blunt to call such a meaningful remark "remarkably unconvincing" without even referring to, say, a policy. I feel the correct outcome, given arguments and weights, would have been no consensus. I usually do not challenge deletion closures but this outcome seems to me seriously at odds from what came out of the discussion. Thanks in advance for your explanation. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you mean. The discussion was split half way in terms of votes, but was very much leaning towards a consensus to delete in terms of arguments. Let me give you some examples. Many of those in favour of deletion pointed out that the article's sourcing on sites like Google News included trivial references, that were not enough to establish independent notability. On the keep side, comments such as "Seriously she has been a featured drag queen in New York and that's arguably one of the toughest cities for the form" and "She is described as a legend!" are totally unconvincing. In short, those in favour of deletion provided arguments which gave far more weight to their comments, and in the absence of any firm reasoning beyond "there are reliable sources" (which were generally seen as unhelpful to a claim of independent notability), I closed the discussion as delete. I don't believe this closure was "seriously at odds from what came out of the discussion"; I made a judgement based on the strengths and weaknesses of the comments. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see your points, however also comments just saying "not notable" -without really explaining why- are as unconvincing in my opinion. Prune both "empty" comments on both sides, and you still end with what looks a clear no consensus, with the problem debated being the quality of sources ; and more time, more looking for sources and more discussion on the talk page could help decide more soundly the fate of the article. There was no clear consensus for delete, nor in votes or arguments -this seems pretty clear to me. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe those commenting in favour of deletion made their own independent judgements based on what they had available, in the same way those commenting in favour of inclusion. The reason I saw these comments as stronger, is because they appear to have independently reviewed the Google News hits, and come to the conclusion that the coverage did not establish a decent case for independent notability. Simply saying "has google hits" isn't enough, and that was clearly demonstrated by some of the deletes. As Kevin pointed out, those sources which did discuss this person in more-than-trivial detail were unreliable sources, such as tabloid gossip articles. I believe the delete comments stem from that research (it is difficult to be confronted with 100-or-so Google News links and say "delete" without at least browsing what the coverage is like). Other more substantial keeps bring back the "mentions" in reliable sources, but do not refute the comments about the sourcing being inadequate about independent notability. So while I take your point about some of the deletes being more empty, I believe they are based on research conducted either by themselves, or others in the discussion. They made a better case for deletion than the others did for inclusion. I thus stand by my close, but you are welcome to take it to deletion review if you still disagree with it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation. It helps me understand how you made your decision. I am going to bring it to delrev anyway, because I am anyway still perplexed on several points, but please do not take it personally -I am sure you did your decision in absolute and constructive good faith, it just seems to me a bit too biased in favour of the delete points while some keep proponents brought sources (even if debatable ones). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Flotilla DeBarge

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Flotilla DeBarge. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I made a comment which (I think) accurately summarises my comments above. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done an analysis of the sources in the DrV and would appreciate your thoughts on that and if canvassing impacted this AfD. Thanks,Hobit (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence of canvassing, or abuse of process off-wiki, so it's not something you should be concerned about. I remain unconvinced by your analysis of the sources; I'm still not seeing enough to justify a standalone article. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the canvassing. I think having person A pop up and say "this looks bad" and person B say "sure does, to AfD with you" wouldn't be acceptable on-wiki. I'm not sure why it should be considered okay off-wiki. On the other, I don't see how you can argue that this clearly doesn't have reasonable sources (and thus you should discount those that claim it does) when the sources easily meet WP:N. WP:N, for all it's faults, is generally pretty Boolean. What issue do you have with the sources? Not reliable? Not independent? Trivial? I think per WP:N those are your choices if, as an admin at a close, you are going to claim that there is no policy based reason to keep in the face of others claiming our inclusion guidelines are met. I'm curious if you think there are other reasons for an admin to discount sources in an AfD close. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong on that point. It would be perfectly acceptable to bring up a "this looks bad" article at a noticeboard or talk page, especially if they want a second opinion. If the second opinion advises AfD, what is the problem? How exactly is that canvassing? You're misinterpreting the guideline. Canvassing would be saying "Hi, go vote in this AfD...", which absolutely did not happen here. A small discussion (not canvassing, a discussion) occurred on Wikipedia Review, which didn't include many of the participants of the AfD anyway, so as I said, you should not be concerned on this point. As for your sources, we must agree to disagree. You provided three definite links which, in my opinion, do not strengthen the claim of notability on their own. Several independent people have commented, endorsing the deletion, so I'm clearly not alone on this point. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Humm, wrt the canvasing I think if someone started a discussion on a talk page that article X sucks and someone else posted a notice there that they had started an AfD on said article that that would be considered canvasing. The only reason for that notification of the AfD was to direct them _to_ the AfD. But as I dislike the canvassing rules (I don't think them enforceable) I'll drop it. Wrt the sources, as an admin I don't think you should be discounting !votes because you don't think the sources are enough if the discussion make a strong case for that. Certainly you can delete if consensus leans that way. But in this case it didn't, and on their face these sources are clearly independent, reliable and non-trivial. I'd love to hear why you think otherwise. In any case, we can agree to disagree and clearly my view is in the minority. Best of luck... Hobit (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Flotilla DeBarge

Could you please userfy this to me? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 03:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi/Flotilla DeBarge. You probably know the rules surrounding userfication, but just in case, please do not restore the mainspace article in its present or similar form without discussion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! -- Banjeboi 09:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been about a month.

I am not logged in (on ACC) and this is the response I get I'm sorry, but that username is in use. Please choose another. I am very confused Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC). I would appreciate it if you either made it so I could request an account or gave me account permissions Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

As I said last time, I have no control over who is selected on the account creation team. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endgame (2007 film)

As the neutral nominator, might you please consider sending a polite "{{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~" note out per Wikipedia:AFD#Notifying_interested_people to the 3 editors who have made major contributions to the article? The original author User:Oakbokken (who as never notified about the original speedy), second major contributor User:Echofloripa, and the third major contributor User:Varks Spira, in the hopes that they may be willing to address the issues being spoken of at the current AfD? I would do so myself, but since I feel that a keep is in order, I'd hate anyone to feel I was canvassing support rather than requesting input and discussion. I'd just like it that they be officially made aware that discussion is ongoing. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disneyfolly block

Hi, Peter. I thought that Disneyfolly was in fact a Bambifan101 sock, but I'd unblocked the account in good faith since several factors seemed to indicate that this user was someone else. In fact, the WHOIS on the anon messages I got on my talk page regarding the block resolved back to Ecuador. Bambifan edits out of Mobile, Alabama. Just so ya know.  :) Believe me, if I thought this was Bambifan even for a millisecond, I wouldn't be here writing to you. Best regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He was still getting hung up by an autoblock, so I unblocked Disneyfolly2. By the way, he was kind enough to email me from his ISP and I have a record of that which I have saved should questions arise in the future. Fred Talk 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

UnBlocking request for IP Addresses of BOLT Browser

Hi, I am Lokesh Joshi and work for Bitstream Inc. (http://boltbrowser.com). We have a very popular mobile browser called BOLT Browser which works on server client architecture. This has minimal load is on the client (mobile phone), and user can experience the Desktop Like browsing experience. For more information please see http://boltbrowser.com.

Recently many of our users reported the following error from Wikipedia while editing the content:

"174.132.56.156 has been disabled by the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or xombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I request you please consider BOLT as legitimate cloud computing based mobile browser. This is not at all an open proxy and users will have to use BOLT client to work through the BOLT servers. More over the originating IP of the handset is available in the headers, so the individual user can be tracked in abuse cases.

Regards Lokesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokeshjoshi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr rfa reply

What did you mean by "consider some running time in the future"?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He said "...consider running some time in the future", which means you should consider running for adminship again once you have more experience. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So what do I need to do to get more experence?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, try to achieve everything on this list; that should be a good foundation to build on. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Write WP:FAs and WP:GAs. Participate in discussions; do some antivandal work; get about some more edits and experience. You might read this and WP:NOTNOW. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Links

I think this may be of interest. Spain has assembled a good scandal and the protagonist has been the User Auslli.

• El autor de los textos nazis es el primer usuario registrado en Llionpedia/The author of Nazi texts is the first user registered in Llionpedia (User Auslli)
• La Llionpedia de Abel Pardo utiliza el ‘lliones’ para exaltar el nazismo/The Abel Pardo Llionpedia use the 'llion' to glorify Nazism
• Un técnico investigará si Abel Pardo se esconde tras el alias «Auslli»/A technician will investigate whether Abel Pardo behind the alias "Auslli»

• Holocausto: de genocidio a sólo unos “pocos miles de muertos”/Holocaust: the genocide in only a "few thousands of deaths"
• Idiota y holocausto
• «Auslli» daba las órdenes al trabajador municipal encargado de la Llionpedia/"Auslli" gave orders to the municipal employee responsible for Llionpedia
• El Fueyu acusa a Diario de León de orquestar una campaña contra el leonés
• La UPL suspende de militancia a Abel Pardo por el escándalo de la Llionpedia/The UPL suspends militant Abel Pardo for the scandal of Llionpedia

I hope this will be helpful.--FCPB (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Helvig of Holstein

Hello! You might be interested in Talk:Helvig of Holstein#Move to Hedwig of Holstein. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Barrett

<BLP vios removed>

You've been blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Blakie1998‎

Thanks for your help with Blakie1998, It really annoys me when vandals work against us here on wikipedia! kiwiteen123 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no probs. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Anymouse active again

He keeps on editing his talk page in a disruptive manner even though blocked:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.37.31.89

Page protection is needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked the IP with talk page editing disabled. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are the few upsides to allowing IPs to edit worth the enormous trouble and waste of time caused by them....? -- Brangifer (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the majority of anonymous editors are constructive. We just don't notice them as much. ;-) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much, that was very quick! I hope to do a good job. Regards Captain n00dle ^T/_C 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks! --Mixwell!^Talk 12:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Many thanks for your tireless efforts at SPI, keeping Wikipedia clear of abuse and other nonsense.--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for you quick attention in this sockpuppet case. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:7oceans

Hello Peter, the editor in the title of this thread was found to be a sockmaster who used the socks to edit war and attempt to sabotage consensus at Vivek Kundra. His socks were blocked but he was not, and he has continued the same behavior as before (including yet another revert). I'm just wondering what the policy was in these cases, I thought people who violated WP:SOCK at least got a slap on the wrist. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Total oversight on my part; I apologise. I thought he was blocked, but I must've been looking at the wrong log. All done now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the prompt reaction! -- Atama頭 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Input request

As you recently closed an RfA, I'd appreciate your input on this page. I've created a template for a single RfA row, with the further intention that it would be usable at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship as well, by use of any of p/passed/promoted to suppress that column. Comments appreciated on my talk page...I'm going to ask others for input as well. I'm trying to make it neater and I want to make sure the process is reasonable before going all-out; I am considering converting the entire history.  Frank  |  talk  18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamprey

Hi PeterSymonds

Thanks for looking into the above SPI. Could you tell me the correct way to strike, delete, or template this edit?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 23:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Sure. The best way is to strike it by enclosing the text in <s>text</s>, with a comment afterwards (in small tags if you wish), mentioning the sockpuppets with a link to the investigation page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. ^Bongo_matic 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to put the "blocked" talk page templates on the users' talk pages with an invitation to request unblock? This isn't the most sophisticated user and an unblock on the sockmaster may be acceptable if s/he agrees to stop. ^Bongo_matic 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

K.duan2009 SPI

I added some new info which may be of interest to you & didn't know if you'd see it without this notice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/K.duan2009#Conclusions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll look into merging them. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DrBat

Peter, sorry to bother you with this, but it appears that DrBat may be circumventing the block and using another account. I posted some evidence here [3], but am curious as to whether that is in fact the right place. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More Pee-Wee fun...

Hi, Peter. I took your advice and I filed a CU regarding that latest spate of sockpuppets. I swear, this vandalism is the stupidest, most counterproductive and asinine activity I've seen in my life. I honestly cannot think of anything else which compares to these unsupervised little brats pounding on Daddy's computer. Sigh... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was planning to deltete that but was to busy or lazy too. (Darkspartan4121 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

No probs. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

that vandalism to my user page

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to uphold Wikipedia rules about this. And I appreciate that something will be done if he vandalises again.

But that's the problem. He has to vandalise again in order to get in trouble for it.

The user is a repeat offender. He (I'm presuming "he") has vandalised Wikipedia many times. I would think that vandalising the site many times would get him harsher punishments - as in, less offenses before he gets banned. I think you can agree with me, vandalising someone's user page is far more awful an act than vandalising a standard article. I've even got the impression that vandalising someone's user page is a silent taboo on this site.

I know you and all the other editors can wait for him to strike again, but I can't. I don't want my user page to be fucked with again. I've had enough. He's not going to improve. He needs to be banned from this site permanently.

You can do that, right? Ban someone permanently? Or else let someone vandalise continuously with no ill effect?

And don't just repeat what was said before. Actually respond to this. I need help. I can't let this happen again. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs often change, sometimes very frequently; the perpetrator behind the previous vandalism is not necessarily the same person. Therefore we do not "ban" IPs (except in the rarest of circumstance, when the IP is known to be that of the same person, and it has a massive history of abuse). If you want me to protect your userpage from IP editing, I can do that instead. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protecting my userpage from IP editing is actually a very good idea. Can you do it for me? Please? --LordNecronus (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please note that this privilege only applies to userspace; I cannot protect your user talk page, unless there is persistent and extreme vandalism, as anonymous users may need to contact you. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY HALLOWEEN

And birthday. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, PeterSymonds. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Hope you have a great Halloween as well ;-) Killiondude (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• :O

• The cabal wishes you a happy birthday. JamieS93 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• have a good one. that's both of them :P. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)