This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

Hi AngelOfSadness, I was wondering when you were going to answer the remaining three questions. I don't want to rush you, but after those three, I have a few more, but they're ones which I'm sure you'll sail through. :) Acalamari 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're timing is great as I was swamped for the last two weeks and I get to do some editing tonight. They should be completed within the next few minutes :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, amazing timing. :) I understand you're busy, and didn't want to rush you, but don't worry, the final six questions after the current three, while relatively easy, will still be important. :) Acalamari 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sure you didn't rush me. And now they are answered :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work: there will be six more questions soon, and then you'll be done! :) Acalamari 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio!! Well not Coolio but cool with a bit more enthusiasm...em yes..that :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written them. :) Good luck. Acalamari 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered three of them for now and hopefully I'll have time tomorrow/Wed to answer the last three :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, there is no rush. :) Acalamari 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I just came across this page. Would you like me to delete it? Declined nominations are usually deleted, and keeping that RfA around makes it look like you've had an unsuccessful RfA when in reality you haven't. Acalamari 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could. Cheers! :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. :) Acalamari 19:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers again. I was meaning to get that deleted for, I think, the last seven or so months. Better late than never and confusion.. I guess :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well AngelOfSadness, I'd like to congratlate you on completing your coaching. You've been an excellent student, and were easy to coach. Your answers showed excellent knowledge of policy, a willingness to learn, and also showed that you're unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. :) You have also been sent an E-mail. Also, you were my first coachee. :) Acalamari 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay I passed. :) Double yay I got an e-mail :D. I feel honoured that I was your first coachee and once again thank you for taking me on as your coachee. And now you have an e-mail :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond soon. Do you mind if I close the coaching page now? Acalamari 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No go right ahead :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, and you have an E-mail. :) Acalamari 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• pokes and whispers* I think there's an e-mail for you :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say is, back to you. :) Acalamari 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, now you have one. :) AngelOfSadness talk 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't keep informing you on your talk page, but once again, back to you. :) Acalamari 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm ... why do you want to stop vandalism ? im not being rude or anything im just wondering??? .ox w/b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vareb002 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much for reasons like vandalism is a huge problem on Wikipedia and that many people come to this site for information (that's hopefully factual and reliable), so if they see vandalism instead of information and take is as being factual..well that can lead to a lot of problems. I know that vandalism can't really be stopped so don't worry if you think I'm fighting a lost cause, but if I can help reduce vandalism in any way, I will. AngelOfSadness talk 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted some vandalism on my userpage back in December. I haven't even looked at my userpage in a while, so I didn't even notice until today. Thank you! :) A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo :) AngelOfSadness talk 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must the page on Victory Pill be deleted? They are a good new band and as of yet, they surprisingly do not have a page on the wikipedia database. I will reference all information about them if needed. Please inform me the steps needed to make the page halt a deletion. Raidon04 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not assert why the band is notable per WP:MUSIC. If the article asserted any of the critera outlined in WP:MUSIC then the article wouldn't have been filed for speedy deletion. Simply having a band doesn't merit a wikipedia article, they must have some grounds of notiblity e.g charted on a national chart, won a prestigious award like a Grammy etc. and any claim of notability must be backed up with reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject. Hope this helped. AngelOfSadness talk 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick help on the Tibet page! I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titusz (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accept a RfA nom, get the tools, kick some ass, and let us all celebrate already! Please? Pretty please? I'll share my trail mix with you! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did well with the coaching program I put her through. :) Acalamari 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I am kicking myself because I promised myself I would only accept an Rfa nom from June onwards. My admin coach, Acalamari, I believe will nominate me (and it might possibly be a co-nom if Nishkid64 and Rlevse are still interested). Although with the amount of vandal fighting I have do in the last two days, my how the tools could have come in handy (dynamite backlog in WP:UAA for about two hours *starts nodding*). But the trail mix is very very tempting :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angelofsadness,

The user page errolockerby is not posted by the actual person but talks about my personal matters and my family. How do we go about removing and tracking the IP or user who created this page?

Thanks,

The real Ero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.207 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to take this to the Administrators' noticeboard as I know there would be more experienced users there who would know what to do in this situation. Hope this helps in some way AngelOfSadness talk 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo :) AngelOfSadness talk 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question: when you use the MediaWiki rollback feature that I gave you, does it come up with an "Action complete" screen? Acalamari 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but only when I catch the reverts otherwise it says something along the lines of can't rollback. AngelOfSadness talk 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, same thing here. I was just curious to see if it did the same with non-admins. After any admin action, there's an "Action complete" screen that comes up. Acalamari 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure even the whole "block user|contribs" etc. shows on the action complete page but for me that function doesn't work....yet :) AngelOfSadness talk 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you can see the "block user" button when you use MediaWiki rollback? Acalamari 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Exactly. But, unfortunately, I still can't see dead people :D AngelOfSadness talk 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me: I was not aware that non-admins could see the "block" button in the "Action complete" screen. Acalamari 23:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I can't see the block button anymore but possibly it's only when the rollback gets stopped if someone else reverted the edits. I'll go and see but I definately saw it earlier when this was happening. AngelOfSadness talk 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that group of vandals. That explains this then. Nice one: that's two useful things you've just told me, one being the solution to a small mystery. :) Acalamari 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was two groups of sycronised vandalism: One writing "nice site" on random pages and the other doing things like this on user talkpages, archivies of usertalkpages and archivies of wikipedia tackpages. It eventually stopped so I'm guessing they got tired AngelOfSadness talk 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the block button only appears when the rollback failed:

Rollback failed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cannot roll back edit to Rutgers University by 71.250.129.31 (talk · block · contribs) because someone else has edited the page.
The last revision was by Elliskev (talk · contribs).
The edit summary was: "Reverted edits by 71.250.129.31 (talk) to last version by BuddyJesus".

So I think that settles that mystery :) AngelOfSadness talk 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And many more!!! :) AngelOfSadness talk 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that vandal meant; cryptic at least. 100TWdoug (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. He was one of many vandals related to this incident yesterday. Sounds like no one knew what they meant :) AngelOfSadness talk 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

60.53.250.191 has now been blocked for a couple of days. ;-) Lradrama 13:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I also left a message on your talkpage saying pretty much the same thing :) AngelOfSadness talk 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit seems really extreme. The article very clearly needed work including context-setting, but not all articles that need to get cleaned up should be speedily deleted. Even if you've never heard of a Banach space, just entering those terms into the search box or into Google would tell you something right away. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clearly by then I should have given up for the night as it was nearly three in the morning. I don't think I had ever worked that late doing RC or NP patrol on wikipedia before and now, I have decided after that, I will never again as mishaps like that hardly happen if it was the middle of the afternoon. Thanks for making me realise something that could have done a lot of damage later on in the future. AngelOfSadness talk 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen im merely a martial artist typing about my a very close friends that i havent seen a quite a while. Why did you tag me? seriously..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaguazhangMaster (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, it would be best if you didn't write about people you know as that presents a clear conflict of interest. Second, the article asserts no significance or importance of the subject. And also I did a quick google check and it seems none of the article may not be expanded much further as none of the information can be verified. Maybe I'm making a mistake with the information, is there any references that assert significance that are availible or could you assert the importance of the subject. Without any assertions of significance the article qualifies, currently, for speedy deletion I'm afraid. AngelOfSadness talk 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that User:Pokegirl14 was reported on the notice board, and someone suggested that they thought it was a good faith, but POV editor. I don't think User:Pokegirl14 is a good faith user. I think this is part of a series of account creating, account hopping socks, pursuing the same flavor of edits repeatedly, geting blocked, and then creating a new account. Look at: [1] and the edits for each of these users: User:Felipe Garcia User:AutisticGuy User:Chocolate Covered Bananas User:SouthernRebelYell User:Oldskoolnintendofan User:BlindedByTheLight75 User:Pokegirl14 The first editor on the Kyle Busch page was User:Felipe Garcia, and since then the edits have not stopped. Is it possible to block the IP? Edhubbard (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the exact same thing and I was going to comment on it while Pokegirl was still on the noticeboard but then they were blocked before I could click "save page". To see if they are the same person/same IP it would be best to make a checkuser report and then it would be up to the deciding admins to decide whether to block the IP for some time. But I have the most vandalised pages on my watchlist incase our little friend decides to return. AngelOfSadness talk 16:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll follow that link and check out how to do it. Cheers Edhubbard (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess the link should be this not the other one (I think I have to review my wiki shortcuts :)) AngelOfSadness talk

The Sock Case for Felipe Garcia is up. User talk:Gordontrain134 a user you reported at AIV is another sock to Felipe Garcia and has been noted Here. Momusufan (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the sockpuppet case was closed a few hours ago as all of the accounts were already indef blocked. But the category of his sockpuppets is defintely news to me. Thanks for letting me know about that :) AngelOfSadness talk 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he isn't giving up, I saw more of his socked blocked yesterday and today. Momusufan (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nice work getting his socks' userpages tagged up. Momusufan (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. But he should know that we're not giving up either. The appearance of new socks seems to becoming less frequent as the first day there was about five socks and now there's about one/two a day. Eventually he'll give up and find something else to do but it just depends on how bored they really are to stick around for several months. By now, we know what his socks look like so they're not that hard to find :) AngelOfSadness talk 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty much obvious since he basicly vandalises the same articles. Momusufan (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also he always vandalises the same way and sure even with one of his socks, he reported himself to WP:AIV. So I don't think he is not attempting to hide himself unlike most sockpuppets I've seen but it just makes it easier for us. AngelOfSadness talk 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of socks, there goes another one:blocked after one edit. AngelOfSadness talk 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast, i'll try to request page protection for some of these articles and see where it goes from here. Momusufan (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did semi-protect Kyle Petty, maybe we could try requesting protection on other articles he has targeted at WP:RPP Momusufan (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to keep some of them unprotected just so we'll be able to revert his edits because if we get the pages protected, he'll move on to vandalise other articles in the same way and we may or may not have those articles on our watchlists and the misinformation could stay in those articles for weeks before someone realises it. Maybe get the Pokemon templates protected anyway as they are transluded onto multiple pages and so it's like vandalising 10+ articles with one edit. AngelOfSadness talk 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Template was the only one I could find that's being targeted by his sockpuppets. Requested semi-protection at RPP, semi because he's using new accounts and not sleeper accounts. Momusufan (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template was also vandalised by one of his socks but it was only the one time know that I'm looking at the edit history. I think he used up all of his sleeper accounts on the first day. I'm guessing he has a dynamic IP that he can reset as every sock account has been blocked with "(account creation blocked)" and yet he returns with new accounts. AngelOfSadness talk 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not again lol Momusufan (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the last two reverts of this talkpage AngelOfSadness talk 19:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His racism and using the spanish racial slur has got to stop, i'll file a WP:checkuser on them to find out his IP range. Momusufan (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like and idea, a good idea. Oddly enough reverting that last sock's edits kinda reminded me of this (including the music and everything :D) AngelOfSadness talk 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a IP check on the accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check HERE to try and get his IP address and/or IP range blocked. Lets get him knocked off wikipedia! Momusufan (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Hopefully it'll work *crosses fingers* . AngelOfSadness talk 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for taking up your time, but the reason I created that page was to give due credit to on of my closest friends. I know that it wasnt taught to many people and only to his 2 sons, but they also deserve credit. I beleive that if people are to know the capabilities of the fighting arts then they should know that there is in fact a way to create your own style. Baguazhang was taught to me as a small child, and my dear friend who has since died created this style so his memory can live on in his children. People should know that there are more than just the basics in this world. There is more to fighting than just throwing punches. They should know that peope leave legacys behind for there children to follow so that the memory can live on. If you would I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me keep this site. I know that I put up "not much is known" but not much is. This great man died before he could actually teach anyone and i beleive that it could benefit those who wish to learn of the rarer martial arts in the world.

With deep sincerity,

Johnathan Berek —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaguazhangMaster (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if the article doesn't assert the significance of the style and is not backed up by third party independant reliable sources or the information can't be verified then the article, chances are, will be deleted. If the style becomes notable in a few years time you are more than welcome to re-create the article asserting it's significance(why it's important) and back it up with sources. As Wikipedia:Your first article states to avoid articles about non-notable(significant/important) topics and articles about someone you know. But, you should know, it's not me who decides if the article stays or is deleted, it's the deciding administrator. You can show your argument of why the article should not be deleted at the article's deletion discussion. AngelOfSadness talk 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no-one made a website about it. I a trying to make it known by placing it here. If you give me some more time, please just till people can know about it. Please? I beg of you. I have many people that can vouch for me but they dont have websites. If you could just give me a week, I will accept this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaguazhangMaster (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But see, wikipedia doesn't accept articles whose primary existance is promotion of a non-notable topic, such articles get deleted on sight all the time as wikipedia is not a soapbox. You could make your own website and if from there, the style becomes notable by it's own accord then that might merit it's own wikipedia article in future providing it's been covered by independant sources etc. all that I have described before. But really, you should make your argument at the link I mentioned in the last post as there is really not much I can do at this point regarding the article's future. AngelOfSadness talk 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone likes you. :) Rudget. 17:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally!!! After eight months of vandal fighting, I finally get a tribute in the form of a username :) Thanks for telling me. AngelOfSadness talk 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... :) Acalamari 19:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the "Acalamari would like to see Natalie Erin's...." usernames were all the same user. So does that mean I should be hopeful that Felipe Garcia/SaneOfGladness will return with another tribute to me? Ahh sugar, now that I've jinxed it, they probably won't return. AngelOfSadness talk 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're the same. :) Don't worry about not getting more spoofs: they'll come. :) There was one time where I was getting a new spoof every three or four days. Acalamari 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the spoofs were at least somewhat imaginative. I hope I won't get something like AngelOfEmoness or something as it's been done before except the editor just changed my signature on talkpage to that then proceeded to creating the page "User:AngelOfEmoness" with "CUT CUT CUT". Strange because if I'm emo then all emos would love this even though I was fairly sure that song would be like, for them, how daylight is for vampires :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until "AngelOfSadness" is created. :) ("Acalamari" was protected from being re-created".) Acalamari 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I wonder what they'll come up with? I'm really looking forward to that now :) Wow created three times, at least there was one version that was not an attack page :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a real admirer ;-)
Thought I help spread Wikilove to you, my friend. Keep up the great work. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay more little icons for my userpage!!!It's good to know I have admirers in a non-creepy way :). AngelOfSadness talk 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You didn't sign your name at: User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal... tsk, tsk - get on it :-) — Dorvaq (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. I'll do that now :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have another one. Hut 8.5 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo this one is a clear tribute. Two in three days. I don't know whether to be proud that this is happening or to be afraid that so many are appearing all of a sudden. AngelOfSadness talk 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has requested semi-protection for your user talk page. I'm inclined to do it, but wondered if you had a view one way or the other? _GB^T/C 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I have been getting a lot of attacks/vandalism on this page lately mostly from sockpuppets of various users so I agree with the semi-protection but I think only for a few days it will be needed :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - 3 days. I've put the padlock sign at the top, but feel free to remove it if you wish. You might want to link to a scratchpad (say User talk:AngelOfSadness/Scratchpad for non-autoconfirmed users to use if they're legitimate and want to leave you a message. _GB^T/C 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll add the scratchpad now and then I'm done for the night as I've had quite and eventful 45 minutes of reverting the sockpuppets, reverting the misinformation of an IP on two articles and was accidentally blocked then unblocked. Yup, I'm done :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you don't need to leave these abusive sockpuppets vandalism warnings - just report them to WP:AIV with a note saying it's a sockpuppet and they should get blocked straight away. Hut 8.5 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool, I'll remember that if the sockpuppets vandalise my scratchpad or user talkpage when the protection is up. AngelOfSadness talk 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my whole-hearted apologies for the accidental block. I was trying to block and tag all the accounts of User:J122334455, and lost track of what user page I was looking at. Tabercil (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok as you stopped the sockpuppets that were causing the orange message bar to pop up every minute so thank you for that :) AngelOfSadness talk 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? looks like you're getting attacked by someone else besides Felipe Garcia sockpuppets. Actually, one of his socks came back to my page about a few hours ago when I was gone, but someone took care of it. The name was User:QueryPixie. I did make that report at checkuser but it's not getting any attention, I was wondering if you make a comment at it so someone could look into it and do something about this. Thanks for your help. Momusufan (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About checkuser, I take that back. The IP's are blocked. He was using residential IP's and some open proxies as well, that should keep him away for a while, I hope. Momusufan (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. At least that's one lot of sockpuppets off my mind for now. AngelOfSadness talk 12:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, he came back again despite the IP blocks under This name. If you saw his edit summaries, he is clearly admiting who he is. I need my talk page protected to stop him now. Momusufan (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new report back at Checkuser IP check on the 2 socks, and my talk page is protected for 5 days. Momusufan (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both IP's blocked, now he's resorting to using open proxies to commit his vandalism now. Momusufan (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He'll tire and go away eventually. Vandalising Wikipedia can't be that fun to keeep it up for months on end. AngelOfSadness talk 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not giving up yet, he used User:EmptyWalls666 and I filed another IP request to see if he's on another open proxy, and he vandalised your scratchpad as well. Momusufan (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many accounts is does that make? 26 sockpuppet accounts that we know of not including The Felipe Garcia one. A tad bit ridiculous now if you as me :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further up in your talk page I have the link to the sockpuppet category, I think its 26 now. Also, he used yet another open proxy to commit racist vandalism again. Momusufan (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least he know it's him and anyone can see his edits are non-constructive if they know that the anime Pokemon isn't Mexican but Japanese and same goes for most of the characters of the Simpsons. I say most because there is Bumblebee Man who is indeed Mexican but our friend hasn't edited that section of the page yet to my great surprise. AngelOfSadness talk 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not revert war as you did on Jason Goldberg and Soleil Moon Frye, instead request page protection if you believe it is vandalism and WP:BLP violation. Also keep in mind that you could be blocked per WP:3RR so please try to avoid it. Thanks. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies, after I warned them the final time I reported the IP but it took a while for the block to be placed (The IP was making four edits a minute at one point). I was actually in the middle of filing for page protection for those two pages but along came multiple sockpuppets attacking my talkpage the very same time the IP was putting clearly incorrect information in the article and then I was accidentally blocked(explained two sections above I think) then was unblocked but my IP remained autoblocked so I never got the chance to complete filing the page protection. But isn't reverting BLP violations an exception to 3RR but either way, I'll be faster filing the page protection in future. AngelOfSadness talk 12:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AngelOfSadness, I think I'd better give you an early warninig: I fear I'm about to engage in an edit war with unruly User:Maria rivas.

He (or she, whoever, NOT the real Maria Rivas, whose command of English is far better) replaced my photograph (which I took only a week ago) with a photo of a poster (see Image:Pepi4.jpg), origin unknown, which is an illustration and not a real portrait, and having Copyright problems, even.

His/her English stinks. I've had to correct his/her edits, as they degrade the article.

I am ready to embark in an complete overhaul of the Maria Rivas article, after preparing myself with a huge mass of information about this notable artist. I must filter/translate/condense/etc. all of it, which means a non-trivial effort. But I fear that if User:Maria rivas is loyal to his/her tradition, an edit war will probably ensue next, and I might need your help to call for an Admin's intervention.

In view of your past interventions, are you willing to help me? I'd appreciate your backing.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know from past experience, it would be best to avoid edit warring but I do think you should be bold and make the edit/s. If your edits get reverted, try and discuss the article with the user and don't revert to your version. But then also because they have the same username as the article doesn't mean they own the article. It's a lot easier to discuss the article if an edit war didn't occur. If worse comes to worse, it might be appropriate then to get the dispute resoluted using a third opinion unrelated/unconnected with the matter. But if the editor becomes uncivil then you could bring that up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and if they are constantly posting copyrighted text and images from other sites (which is how I got involved with them) bring it up at WP:AIV only if they have been warned sufficently e.g. after final warning. Also remember to focus on the content of the article when discussing the article with the other user even if they aren't exactly doing the same.

But the username, as now that you mention it, could be violation of username policy (not a completely blantant violation but still a violation) which states You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. But it may or may not apply here as I remember back in September that the account user admitted they were Maria herself but if it is or isn't herself, it's best to assume good faith as much as possible. Hope this helps. AngelOfSadness talk 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thank you very much! I value your guidance highly. --AVM (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo :) AngelOfSadness talk 21:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AngelOfSadness,

I wanted to quickly inform you that I have reverted a previous change you have made to the Epygi wiki. Thank you for taking the time to investigate the content that DiHudson had uploaded. She is however part of the Epygi Technologies Ltd. Corporation and has permission to use the copywrited material from our main epygi.com website. I am also a member of this company with approval to use the material on our corporate website. Thank you again for the help. Hope you are having a great day.

Warren Sonnen Director of Marketing Epygi Technologies Office 972.692.1166 x39 SIP 20539@sip.epygi.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epygi (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel of Sadness,

I work for the Raconteurs management company and the band wanted me to edit their page with the press releases that I posted and you took down. I have permission to use these releases from both Press Here and the band since we are their management. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

George Karalexis Monotone Inc. office: 323.308.1818. george@monotoneinc.com

OK but there's a slight problem with the text as it would have to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view and so currently isn't suitable for use on Wikipedia. Also it would be best that you don't edit the article as it presents a clear conflict of interest. AngelOfSadness talk 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. But the band wanted the official biography up as well as the correct information as well as the press release from the band regarding the new album. Jack just wants to make sure that there is consistency with the information that is being provided to the fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.79.146 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But even if the content was added to the article, it would still have to be modified to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and also nothing can be done to keep the content intact as anyone can edit the article. The article was and is created as a community effort and no-one owns the article and that includes the subject of the article. What I mean by "own" is that no-one has control of the articles content. However it might be best if you read Wikipedia:Copyrights over the copyrights of the content submitted. AngelOfSadness talk 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the barnstar. Wow the amount of vandalism your user talkpages have suffered in the last day but at least it isn't the same person each time by the looks of it. Anyway thanks again :) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the headline, or feel free to change it if you like. I was simply very bored. ;D I wanted to award you this barnstar, and to once again poke you to just mop up already! :D Cheers.

Now I never got that barnstar before in all it's wonderful and shiny gloriousness and so thank you very much for it :). But I wont start running for the mop until June (48 days if you wish to start a countdown :D) And I'm definite about it being June for sure. By then I would have been editing Wikipedia solidly(nearly every day) for about a year. My how time flies AngelOfSadness talk 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get a statement ready by then. :) Acalamari 16:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there's no great rush as there's loads of time til then :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a countdown already then! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AngelOfSadness2 has been on my watchlist now for ages. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's now Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AngelOfSadness as I delclined the first nom so the Rfa got deleted per my request :). I have both on my watchlist just in case for the last while anyway :) AngelOfSadness talk 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and rightfully placed on my watchlist! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. ;) AngelOfSadness talk 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really love warheads though, its just well in florida the apple didnt taste right so i had to mess um up a bit. SIT (stay in touch) if u didnt no.

I'm sorry but just because the product didn't taste right isn't a valid excuse to vandalise Wikipedia - FYI, there are no valid excuses to vandalise Wikipedia. It probably would have been better to call up their customer services if it really bothered you. Just refain from doing that in future. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Are you the one who wanted me to delete the Clique series page? Why? Who are you? --Jackie*KCJ (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No an admin deleted the Clique series page, but I notified you of it's deletion as you created the page. It did not assert enough context to establish the subject of the article which made deletable per the A1 critera of speedy deletion and so I tagged the article as such. Cheers AngelOfSadness talk 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of this one and this one? Acalamari 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not until now. :) I think those are my 3rd/4th spoofs now. The first one I think was this and the second one I got to report myself at UAA. :D AngelOfSadness talk 13:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the revert I did. :) Anyway, nice one on getting the spoofs! Acalamari 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I still find it odd that I was editing Wikipedia pretty much every day for about eight months without getting any spoofs whatsoever and then I get four within about three days of each other. I know that the 1st and 2nd ones were apart of a huge(there was about 25 socks by day four) sockpuppet/dyanmic IP vandalism but I can't explain the third and fourth ones just yet :) AngelOfSadness talk 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of this one? I guess this makes five...Maolain (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		Thank's for reverting the vandalism on my user page, mam! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo and cheers for the barnstar :) AngelOfSadness talk 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Heart Barnstar
		User page vandalism is a nasty thing, and it's ashame you've had to put up with it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that userpage vandalism can get nasty but the odd time it can be humourous (it's true it has happened to my userpages a handful of times) so it's not always so bad but of course it depends on the user page vandal doing the deed. AngelOfSadness talk 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]