User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives:

1. /Archive 1

Blocked from the article, [2] unsourced, nothing on her wikipage - RV?

Thanks,

WLU 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The rumor is going around, but it's unsourced; however, is Complex regional pain syndrome related? She does have that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a good bit of work in the article months back and don't remember anything that resembles CRPS. Lupus is an autoimmune condition attacking generally connective tissues, while CRPS looks like nerve stuff without immune system involvement. Lupus doesn't attack nerves in my memory, but it's really a bit of a WTF diagnosis anyway - they're not sure about etiology and treatment is all symptomatic immune supression. Neither page mentions the other and I would say that there's no overlap. WLU 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd venture that the rumor is because she attended a lupus benefit, but it looks like that was because of that American Idol contestant. Anyway, I removed the unsourced thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Would you prefer that I ask reverts like this of others? I mostly do so out of convenience because of your familiarity with my circumstances. WLU

• • No problem at all -- this required research, which is really what I like to do best. And I learned stuff from it! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one doesn't have any learning involved, simple revert. WLU 22:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from Wikinews again and I just saw JB196 report there under the IP address of User:64.22.123.122. [3] You may want to check to see if that is an open proxy or not. — Moe ε 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Three sleepers there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not starting to sound like a broken record but [4] User:68.196.106.100 might be another JB196 open proxy. — Moe ε 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be. Hasn't been here yet, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here might be another, check please? [5] User:71.229.6.141 And please tell me if there is a more appropriate place to be adding this to, because I feel I am bothering you :) — Moe ε 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can take things like this here. Nobody's used that IP on enwiki yet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• *poke* User:69.59.8.158 [6] — Moe ε 01:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nada. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poo. Maybe he's getting wise to the tactic :) — Moe ε 01:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was going to message the Requests for checkusers before it was complete, now thats too late. I put a request up months ago for a m:Right to vanish. My user and talk page were deleted. I pretty much refrained from editing most pages but I was pulled back into the state terrorism page because of the constant edit warring and AfDs by a small group of editors who want to delete the page. My question is now what? What happens now? 69.152.136.146 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea. I just ran the checkuser; it's for someone else to deal with it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suicup is trying to push some of his/her own POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page by claiming that "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (emphasis added). All fair-minded Wikipedia editors with a working knowledge of WP:NPOV have agreed that a more neutral word (such as "a factor" rather than "a key obstacle") would be more appropriate. Suicup claims to be unbiased in this matter, and yet in the debate, he/she accused those that challenged him to be "a clique of pro-Israeli contributors," implying that (1) Suicup is anti-Israel and therefore the lone voice of reason and (2) that there is a Jewish conspiracy on Wikipedia. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks. --GHcool 06:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't look to me like my "help" is needed over there; people are discussing and noisily disagreeing with each other, but in a mostly civil fashion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at vote here? Suicup asked all his buddies to and overthrew the original majority and then one of the people I asked to vote on WikiProject Israel voted against the proposal as well! --GHcool 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Voting is evil; besides, the settlements are a key obstacle to peace. That's hardly a new concept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Is that better? [7]Fainites 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get two of the six sections as over 1000 words with my word processor - Fainitries 2000+ words and StokerAce ~1200. I planned to trim the adjectives and other stuff to get them back into the ~1000 range in a few days; would you prefer I do it immediately? Picaroon (Talk) 15:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno. I suspect it will be a Sisyphean task; take a look at the talk pages of the involved articles...Anyway, no rush. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut my one down alot. I'll work on it a bit more. Sorry. Fainites 15:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind advising me JP what it is you're looking for (I don't mean content of course) because there's so much over so long. Fainites 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just focus on the core of the matter; remember, we can always ask for more later if we need it. But don't worry now; I really shouldn't have groused at you in particular. (I'll use the "I shouldn't edit before I've had my first cup of coffee" excuse.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance look at the history of Strotha edits (they always follow me, they always revert my work, for 1 year now) even when i developed accent he stalked me there. (but i am here to edit not play games with editors) and look at this article slavery in modern Africa, also Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no case where i am unjustified,(proven later my concensus) If once i called on some assistance, from blatent violation of wiki procedure, i hardly think that is a sin. If admins and policies dont protect from this then why continue to contribute. some are a master of blocking, checking and reverting. I think the evidence speaks for itself and as i understand it when people are stalking you and holding grudges one must take counter measures. and note there is relationships between these 3 editors which is another issue. so 3-1 --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 07:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid none of what you're saying even vaguely justifies your use of alternate usernames to violate Wikipedia policy. It's not a sin; it's merely enough to get you permanently banned if you keep doing it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I read, or where it was. Perhaps it was after reading all the comments, where, in one case you said there was no 'evidence' of wrong doing (my words) for Justanother/Bravehartbear and in another you were responding to no 'evidence' of browser info, and you'd have screamed like a banchee.. etc.. I've retracted the statement. I've looked to find what caused me to 'think' you'd made such a claim and I can't find it.

(I /s truck it out, but it can be deleted entirely if you prefer).

Please accept my apologies. Peace.Lsi john 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, and no apologies needed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, per this, it wasn't my intention to offend you, and I'm really sorry if I did. It's just that disruptive sockpuppets have been very frustrating to me lately (not Halaqah in particular, with whom I've barely come in contact.) You at RfCU are doing your jobs very well, but that's often not the case elsewhere where sockpuppets are concerned. Although the RfCU page states not to bring obvious socks there, in practice one often has no other choice because administrators don't act, either because they can't see the obvious, or because obvious isn't enough. I've even been told outright on several occasions, yes, it's completely obvious, but I'm uncomfortable blocking without a checkuser. In this one instance (in which I'm otherwise not involved), there was a checkuser and still no block. Perhaps there aren't enough administrators watching the page. Perhaps there aren't enough administrators, period. I don't know. But I certainly didn't mean to disparage your work, and I apologize if that's how it came across.Proabivouac 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a lot of administrators watch RFCU, period; there's not much reason for them to. But -- what was the hurry? It's not like the editor was doing anything more serious than being annoying on one article; whether the accounts were blocked at midnight or at 6am really doesn't make any difference. Anyway, I felt snarked at so I snarked back; that's all it was. No big deal whatsoever. (Me very thickskinned. Me sometimes post before coffee. Questionable technique.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, on the evidence discussion page, both pro-cofs editors, Justanother and Lsi john have violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with me as I am perceived by them as "the enemy". I suggest better order be kept in that discussion. Providing a psychological opinion does not help. --Fahrenheit451 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither do your "apologies". Clean up your own act before complaining about others'. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me exactly what in my discussion needs a "clean-up" as you state.--Fahrenheit451 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "apologies". I don't need to look any further than those two comments that were addressed directly to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "apologies" were intended to call attention to the conduct violations I experienced on that page with Justanother and Lsi john. I did not see any action or comments on your part to remedy that. Should You have done something?--Fahrenheit451 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this was hardly AGF. I've stated quite clearly on numerous occasions that I have absolutely no connection with Scientology. I'd never even heard of it before I got here, and even after I heard of it, I thought it was the same thing as Christian Science. "unproductive personal comment removed" Peace.Lsi john 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't pollute my talk page with your bickering. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It wasn't meant to be bickering. My initial intention was to document his post in the same place he made his charges. I got carried away, and that was wrong. I have removed the personal commentary. Peace.Lsi john 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got email, its extremely urgent so please check it ASAP and reply via email to me if necessary. Regards, FPT 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it, but it looks like the problem was already taken care of. By the way, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to go for such things in the future. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently-created user who might be the banned User:Tecmobowl reincarnated. His topics of interest and his choice of words are similar, as well as obviously knowing his way around wikipedia very well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Long_levi ] As with Tecmo's sockpuppet El redactor, this user has a pre-emptive explanation for it. I don't know what the rules are in this regard. I had many clashes with Tecmobowl, and I don't want to cross swords with him again. So instead of hassling this new guy, I'm taking this question to an admin. Actually I took it to another admin earlier today, but he's gone on wikibreak. It's worth pointing out that I complimented Long levi for fixing some problems in the Hall of Fame links. That was good and needed work on his part. However, his zeroing in on and deleting references to the fangraphs site, which was a major point of dispute between Tecmobowl and other users, is suspicious. Also, the new user is highly interested in Hank Aaron and home runs, as the breaking of his career record nears. Tecmobowl was based in Atlanta. Thank you for any help you can provide. Baseball Bugs 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An RFCU would return  Possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verrry interesting. I wanted to add that other things he zoomed in on right away were citing the 1910 Chalmers award (an article Tecmo wrote) in the Fred Merkle talk page... and starting to question various External Links, which was one of Tecmo's obsessions. He also quickly spoke to User talk:Basar about how the "recent spat" on the baseball project page "was about everything but content". That sounds familiar. I want to try and stay away from any direction interaction with this guy work through "the process" instead. What should I do next, if anything? Baseball Bugs 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious how this works as well. Specifically how the noticeboard for Suspected Sock puppets works in combination with an RFCU. Is one required before the other? BB, I'm guessing you would open a user RFCU with the evidence, get a 'possible' reply, and then open a suspected sockpuppet page on that notice board for comment/review. Peace.Lsi john 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's correct, then my question is.. at what point does a "this is a suspected sock puppet" notice get posted on the user's accountpage? Peace.Lsi john 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no particular protocol as far as I am concerned; the checkuser operators pay no attention at all to SSP (to my knowledge, anyway; I certainly don't attend to it). SSP is for people to get help analyzing the contributions and behavior of suspected sock puppets; RFCU is for gaining what technical information can support allegations of puppetry. In this case, I'd take it to SSP now, since we know RFCU can't prove it. As far as "suspected sock puppet" notices are concerned: not my department; I rarely put up notices, and only when they're confirmed. (Otherwise, my opinion would carry too much weight.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know me from here [[8]]

My record of quality edits

My record has a valued contributor to wikipedia is rarely exceeded. In just over 3 months, over 900 quality mainspace edits, not mindless bot edits or minor edits; nearly 50 new articles created; over 2000 total edits; edits to articles ranging from a small but important fact in cholangiocarcinoma to new articles, such as Driving in Singapore, to correcting wrong information (boy, that helps WP's credibility!), to 70-100 fixing of vandalism, and no editing conflicts

Jersyko, in retaliation for my oppose RFA vote, began frequent harrassment of me. He has done so again by tampering with a RFCU and adding my name. Jersyko does few quality edits for WP (fact, not a criticism).

Help needed in RFCU

There was a previous RFCU. Jersyko blocked me indefinitely based on that but Jimbo Wales unblocked after the RFCU after he received private information confirming my identity [[9]] (Evidence was so strong and you know Jimbo Wales doesn't get involved unless the matter is strong) . Jersyko is trying to WP:POINT and harrassing me with the new RFCU because he knows that "unrelated" result will not happen and want to humiliate me and ban me. RFCU is not pixiedust and will be a rehash of the first one. Jersyko and Derek conflict over Barack Obama, something that I am not even interested in.

Please close the RFCU without my name on it. This harrassment is so disruptive that I have stopped article writing for rest of the week. MastCell listed the RFCU properly but it was later modified it to make it harrassing. VK35 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect Jerysko to argue here as well as Tvoz and Bobblehead, who always are part of the complaining 3. (Pre-emptive warning to alert you of an impending "consensus") VK35 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton did admit on the show to paying for his ex-girlfriend's abortion. Emperor001 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I was just going to do that, but you beat me to it.--Isotope23 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpgordon. Can you confirm whether this IP falls in the relevant range from this RFCU? If you prefer, I can make a more formal request. Thanks. · jersyko talk 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. And it's User:Botrag, too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Botrag is the newest sock, it appears. Sigh. Thanks. · jersyko talk 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block this sockpuppet of TJ's? Right now it's block evading. — Moe ε 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like someone else got to this; I was busy crossing Death Valley. (It was raining there!) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweet, you live near Death Valley? Oh, and FYI User:24.154.77.207 might need to be blocked. — Moe ε 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, we spend about a 2/3 of our time in Las Vegas and the rest in Kernville, California, pretty much a straight shot due west. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, hopefully you don't do this all on horseback I hope :) — Moe ε 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a huge favor? User:74.36.18.128 recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to User:TJ Spyke? — Moe ε 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably is. But nothing definitive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the community sanction noticeboard and going to repost your comment if you don't mind. He's already in a ton of trouble for revert warring already, so this just adds on to his case. — Moe ε 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that is pretty funny. So, was his self-requested CU of User:Xveolgvzr correct? I guess we have to check history before blocking anyone based on apparent CU results. Come to think of it, I do recall feeling some surprise that you'd recommended banning anyone at RfCU.Proabivouac 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, Xv... was another of them. It was the banning suggestion that caught my eye; I figured I might have forgotten confirming a checkuser, but I wouldn't have forgotten recommending banning someone, given that I don't think I've ever done that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there JP. Could you do a CU on this report please?Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nadirali. It appears that one of the PakHub guys from IND-PAK arbitration is in action. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! A few days ago, Luna probably contacted you regarding your 6 June 2007 block on User:84.45.219.185. He (well he claims to be someone else) is claiming to just have been assigned this IP and that IP is in dynamic range. Could you please check if this IP is indeed unblockable? Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't heard a single decent explanation as to what sort of "public terminal" or "school IP" that IP is -- just that it is one; meanwhile, it's been home to a large number of abusive accounts. If someone on the user talk page explains, I might be willing to listen. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you blocked User:Jerpeegordon (presumably because he/she was a sockpuppet of Kirbytime's). Did you perform a check user? Also, where is the relevent discussion which determined that the user was a sockpuppet. I'd appreciate if you could give me a link.Bless sins 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked it because it was impersonating me. There was no relevant discussion; then I ran the checkuser on the main request where it was impersonating me Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime and wasn't much surprised. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) Did User:Iantresman reveal to you that he was asking you a question with a sockpuppet account? [10] I find the use of a sockpuppet here to be deceptive unless he informed you about his main account. Iantresman has a history of repeatedly complaining about editors for being uncivil. Looks like he was trying a back door way of continuing his disputes with these editors by getting you to sign off on something to one of his socks. Of course, you were suspicious and answered carefully. :-) This is an issue becasue he is trying to bring a ArbCom case now and claims that his socks were not abusive. The recent ArbCom request he started and recent insistnce that the community needs to address others users uncivil actions has caused some to lose patience with him and a community ban is being discussed now. FloNight 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought that looked familiar! No, of course he didn't reveal it to me. I wondered why that was never continued. How vexatious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that he didn't post that thread just to Jpgordon, but to several other arbitrators' pages as well. Newyorkbrad 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently stated that this checkuser was unnecessary. When the person behind JGWilliams is someone who goes to my school, I think I'd know whether he's a sock or not. He admitted he edited with the IP address too. Why is it uneccessary? Davnel03 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me and i will never let that happen again. I swear I didn't do it on propose why would I try to get myself blocked while I'm on editor review but now all the reviewers are going to say is "why did you get blocked?" so I guess I just ruined my chances for a good review. Thanks again.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your unblock decline and his response. I thought this request by an IP claiming to be SanchiTachi (talk · contribs) posted at WP:CN and the subsequent edit was extremely interesting. Beyond just the similar wikilawyering on the letter of policy, I wasn't the one who blocked Sanchi, but I did block Nobutora... I was 99% sure when I blocked, now there is no doubt in my mind they are the same person.--Isotope23 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thanks for helping sort out the attachment therapy article. With the socks mostly dealt with, I don't think I'm needed much there any more. I can go back to the work I was involved in elsewhere.

Ironically, this involves one more item to head your way. No socks this time though, just a simple straight RFArb.

Thanks again for re-checking the AT accounts.

F. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i was just logging on after a four day vacation to Florida, and discovered I couldn't edit. The whole thing was just a coincidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connell66 (talk • contribs) 01:34, July 22, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, jp. I don't know if you've noticed that Irpen has posted a suggestion for a "novel solution" in the Piotrus RFAR?[11] I've been discussing this with Irpen, and he has obviously given it a lot of thought. And compare his contributions ! Piotrus and Ghirla have commented, but I worry that the arbs may not notice the post, where Irpen has placed it. It would be great if you have time to read it, and, if you like, comment on it. There are some truly excellent content contributors involved in the case, as of course you know, and I would love to see some—any—solution implemented whereby we have a chance to avoid losing one or more of them.

For my part, I did submit evidence about Anynobody-Justanother after all, in the COFS case. I noticed you have briefly analyzed Anynobody's evidence in the section "Analysis of evidence" on the Workshop page. (I don't think I've seen that section actually used before... ) Are people supposed to ask to have their evidence analyzed, or is it something arbs do as they see a call for it? I'd obviously love to have a comment on my evidence, its usefulness/relevance or otherwise. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Usually the section isn't used because usually the result is more arguing, and that gets tired rather quickly. But I was feeling a little testy about what was passing as "evidence" -- perhaps the page should be called "pleadings" or something like that, since they seem generally to fill up with opinions. Like most everything in ArbCom, there aren't any particular protocols; we kinda wing it every case. I'll take a look at Irpen's suggestions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to your input in the ArbCom case involving my person. If you have time, do check recent comments and suggestions by other editors, including the below-signed, too :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision#Checkuser request: Mosquera/Yakuman? It is a checkuser request related to an ongoing RFAR. I know it wasn't listed at WP:RFCU, so I'm not sure anyone will notice it. Thanks, Iamunknown 05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Found it. Thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya,

Email for you. Can you let me know when you get it?

Many thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Got your reply, too.

Follow-up confirmation on adminship; I've been mopping since January if that was missed :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, and thanks! Got your current email and replied to it with info (longer this time).

Also note the new email account, created specifically for Wiki purposes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brand new account, user:WingnutsBegone, just made an edit at WP:RFCN [12] that is suspiciously like a certain perma-blocked individual (see this RFCU). Is this worth filing an RFCU on? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah. That's TortureIsWrong again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought so. I'll take this to WP:ANI to have the account blocked. And I think I'll be just a tad less cryptic next time ... Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the most recent two edits at WP:RFCU/IP are by WP:SPAs modifying the request for Jagged Ruby. (See [13] and [14]). They don't seem to be vandalism, but it's still suspicious. Though I'd let you know. And please let me know if there's a better/prefered forum for this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]