User talk:IrishLass0128

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page. No sense in crowding up two pages. Thank you.

If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks.

Archives

1. Archive 1 Beginning to October 2007
2. Archive 2 November 2007-December 2007
3. Archive 3 January 2008-

Grant Chuggle socks blocked

I have extended his block to a week and blocked both socks. Daniel Case 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked all the socks, then semi-protected Santo DiMera and Tony DiMera in case he tries to do it again (You can still edit those articles; he can't do it anonymously, and if he tries to set up a new account he'll have to wait four days). Hopefully he'll start getting bored of this at some point. Daniel Case 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked that sock (for a month now, as opposed to a week). I will be extending Grant's block again for a few more weeks, although my patience is running low, especially after my post and advice to him late last night. We usually don't block IPs indefinitely (unless they're open proxies) as they are usually reassigned to other users after some time, the vandals give up, and it wouldn't be fair to people who haven't done anything wrong to try to edit without an account and find that they can't. Right now there's got to be a few other customers of his ISP who've been inconvenienced because of the blocks I've had to make.

I don't, personally, have the authority to formally ban him (only Jimbo Wales can do that) ... it would be informal if I got to the point of blocking him indefinitely and no one else wanted to unblock him. I may set up a long-term abuse subpage, though, if this keeps going on. Daniel Case 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the latest socks and have reset his block to three months (as in, three months from today). I didn't go to indefinite yet because he wasn't trying to edit the same pages and took his time before coming back. Daniel Case 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Yamla lowered the boom finally. But I doubt this will be over. As I indicated on Yamla's talk page, if it continues we may have to request a community ban just to make this even more serious.

BTW, don't threaten a range block casually as you did on one of the sock talk pages. You're not an admin (yet ... think of it that way :-)), and even among admins it takes some skill to do it. And because of its effect on innocent bystanders (so to speak), it is not a move we take unless there is no alternative (that's why I protected those pages first). As Yamla has suggested, it might well be so in this case, but we would have to get some consensus. Daniel Case 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I modified it to what I meant for it to say. That I hope they ban all his IPs. I wasn't threatening in any way to do it, I think he knows I can't, but you're right, I should have phrased it differently. I do hope that all his IPs can one day be banned, and I'll keep reporting him everytime I see him, but I know, as he should, I don't have that power and hope you know I didn't mean it to come across in such a way. Again, apologies if it did. IrishLass0128 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The bitter end

Grant has called it quits. Daniel Case 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's true, fantastic. But I'll keep a watchful eye on the pages just the same. IrishLass0128 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Colaatje5

Hmm. This is intriguing. The edit history does show a similar tendency to soap opera articles, and "Colaatje" sounds like it could be something in Afrikaans (we know Grant lives in South Africa).

The procedure you're thinking of does exist — it's called Request for CheckUser. The process of making it is very formal since only a limited number of people have been trusted with the authority to do it since privacy is very important to Wikipedia.

And it is so formal that an out-of-the-blue request won't be accepted. Not without first opening a case at suspected sockpuppets. If you want to open it go ahead ... I am going to be out most of the U.S. Eastern Daylight Time day, and I can either do it when I get back or look over a case you've started (remember, Colaatje and Grant will have to be notified to give them an opportunity to respond). I did this once before, and I will warn you it takes a while for some impartial admin to look it over and decide whether a CheckUser should be requested or not, or what to do otherwise. Daniel Case 15:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried and just got confused. If you could do it, I would very much appreciate it. It is truly bothersome that nearly all their edits are marked with an M for minor when they are clearly not minor edits but in actuallity acts of vandalism.IrishLass0128 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's open. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grant Chuggle. Daniel Case 05:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MaryPoppins878

Hmm. This may be more suspicious. The account was opened after we started blocking Grant, and has shown some interest in South Africa-related subjects (Despite the outcome of the SSP, I still wonder. Grant began his editing during a break in the use of that account over the summer). Daniel Case 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ever since I pointed out I had my suspicions about this user, they've slowed down. What I find awfully funny is that all the edits are to the Bold and the Beautiful pages and the Days pages and all are almost exactly like the ones Grant did. The adding of the age thing is the big one. Can we do anything about it? IrishLass0128 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And in further developing news, new user M-townboy is making edits and if they are reverted MaryPoppins878 immediately changes them back. This is easy to do, using two different browsers, IE and Foxfire for example, you can log in to two different accounts. I did see the comments about MP being from South Africa. Can we get a sockpuppetry case going now?? I've also repeatedly warned both about their edits bordering on vandalism. IrishLass0128 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, do you want me to go to SSP and open one up? (Sorry, I've been busy, but I see this situation is continuing).

And actually, what if Grant's a sock of Colaatje? Daniel Case 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, their edits are nearly 100% in line with Grants and they are only editing the articles Grant edited. As to Colaatje, they haven't editted in quite some time so I'm no longer concerned. If they pop up again, we'll address that. MaryPoppins, however, is editing actively unless they see me online, then they stop for a while. I do believe they are Grant, especially since they said they were from South Africa also they are adding ages to articles and that was his tell tale sign. Thanks again. IrishLass0128 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting utterly ridiculous. They are using the same comments Grant used to make and using the same sources Hen55 used to. When I remove ages per the Soap Project and per Writing about Fiction, they revert the edits and claim to have sources. On soaps ages change daily sometimes yet they, much, much, MUCH, like Grant refuse to adhere to that. Remember the Colleen Brady issues? It's the same thing all over again. Help! IrishLass0128 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the new splurgings on the user talk page, I've requested page protection on it Mayalld 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. They really aren't helping their case at all if, and that's a really big if, they aren't grant. IrishLass 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! A nice admin just fully protected the page for 2 weeks, so we shall see what he pulls out of the sock drawer next!! Mayalld 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully he'll go away for good this time. Probably won't, but I'm always watching. IrishLass 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The end

In case you didn't already know, the entire Telekom SA range has been blocked. This should put an end to Grant and his sockpuppetry. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks affect everyone from that IP, or at least within the designated range. They can be soft or hard like regular blocks. BUt yes, they would often mean that everyone from that area who wants to edit has to register, unless Telkom SA does something about Chuggles. There's one case like that already in the Houston area where Southwestern Bell has been unresponsive. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

so

you have more than crap in your page history when you log in. ··coelacan 23:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wish all my messages were like this. IrishLass (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RE - Las Vegas

I would suggest removing the dates from the people who have starred for all 5 seasons. The dates should be only on the stars that left the show before it ended and the ones that joined the show after it started. I want no dates period, but there should be dates on the ones I mentioned. I did some research and most other shows that went off air, show no dates on the stars that starred throughout the entire show. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree in removing them. A compromise would be putting the season numbers instead of the years. Like Danny McCoy (Josh D) (Seasons 1-5). That would accurately reflect his tenure and would line up with the DVD releases. Not sure what shows you looked at but revolving casts is a fairly new thing for prime-time. Soaps have done it for years and their shows reflect dates. I'll look around and maybe we can find a good middle point. IrishLass (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the infobox and it lists "Original run date" which is something the television project added. As it is part of the infobox, it can be within the mainspace of the article next to the names. I couldn't find any cancelled shows that are reflective of dates/seasons, only current shows which wouldn't be relative to this particular situation. IrishLass (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea for putting the seasons instead of the years, I didn't think of that. That would be a good compromise. I don't like seeing the years, it's misleading in my view. When I see (2003-2008), it looks like he left the show, when in fact the show was cancelled. Showing the seasons is a better solution. Thanks Again - Welcome Back. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. It makes sense and keeps it consistant with other articles with changing casts. IrishLass (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed a difference in the TV Infoboxes? Like the font has been changed or made smaller. I have noticed it on pretty much all the TV articles. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm using IE instead of Firefox on a 15" monitor, everything looks different. My computer is about the only thing I miss from my old job. I did ask a friend though, he'll let me know what he thinks and I'll get back to you. IrishLass (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IP

Hi, yes I could, but I'm not very familiar with the case and it would take me some time to come up to speed, and I'm a bit swamped at the moment. Have you tried contacting the blocking admin? You might also want to post a report at WP:RPP. If that doesn't help though, let me know and I'll try to take a look. --Elonka 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was taken care of. Sorry to bother you. Thanks for your quick reply. IrishLass (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary LeVox

If the source actually does say that Gary LeVox' name means "Gary the Voice", then the info should stay. It may be a minor detail, but given that it is a stage name, there's probably no reason to remove a perfectly valid, sourced explanation of its meaning. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source was valid, not a commentary in Rollingstone followed by a snarky remark about Jay, it might be worth adding. If it was why he chose the stage name, it would be valid, but it's just a "hey, this word means this" comment by someone who isn't an authority on Latin. Additionally, I find adding it to the opening paragraph and removing facts (Jay being his cousin) is highly inappropriate. A notation in a further down paragraph, maybe. A link to a Latin dictionary online might be valid, but an editor on Rollingstone? Not the most reliable in the Latin language. IrishLass (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't check it thoroughly. I've removed it for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if you read the whole thing, you'll see a comment "It's fact, look it up. Translation: put it on Wikipedia" which tells me the whole thing is questionable and the editor wants his comments used as sources here. That's not exactly what I would consider a valid source. I'm glad you agreed. Thanks for looking into it. IrishLass (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jason

I'm on it. And thanks for staying civil, it makes my job easier.  :) --Elonka 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Favor -- Article that needs to be deleted

Hey, thanks for watching the List of supercouples article while I've been gone. Of course it's on your watchlist and you're a regular contributor to that article, but I've been mainly alone in reverting unsourced material to that article lately, and felt the need to say thank you for being there.

The favor I'm contacting you about is the Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters article. That article needs to be deleted pronto. That article is a mockery to all the actual supercouples (fictional or real). That couple didn't even come close to supercoupledom. I tagged it for deletion weeks ago, but an administrator felt that that article looked significant and suggested it go to AfD instead. Jeez! If it was in any way valid, I wouldn't feel/know that it should be deleted. Will you take care of the AfD for this article for me, since I am still without computer access at the moment? Flyer22 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)