User talk:Avicennasis/MainArchive/2010Q1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← 2010Q1 |
2010Q2 →


February 2010

Hello Avicennasis.
Welcome 'back' to Wikipedia. There are a few question on the Science Ref. Desk you may be interested in like this "super-simple_question_about_life_on_other_universe" and just before it there is another on iPod touch screens. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. I had actually looked at the iPod touch question, and started off trying to find information on Non-ITO Transparent Conductors, but since I was unable to find anything that wasn't already listed, I decided not to comment. The "super-simple question about life on other universe" was also a very interesting read, but I felt I had nothing substantial contribute to that discussion. I have seen a lot of your work around the reference desk though - there is some great information you provide. :) Avicennasis @ 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is for failing to understand that your reply is not a solution to my question on the CS reference desk. (Reading the first command I had posted as an example of what did *not* work would have helped) :-P -- 78.43.93.25 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the Ref Desk. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:Aaarian has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Anna Lincoln 10:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your judgment on this edit, based on your extensive Wikipedia history versus my own. I should note that I also edited the talk page of said user for the same reasons: it seems this user account was created solely for spam. I will leave that at your discretion, with no hard feelings, whatever you decide. Avicennasis @ 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your edit because, as a general rule, you can't nominate another user's page for deletion nor do it under the claim that it's spam. In these cases the usual action to take is to discuss with the user on his talk page. If the user does not have a previous history of contributions to the encyclopedia, you can nominate the page for deletion. I will do this now. Best wishes, Anna Lincoln 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have followed your example a few times, and taken these pages to MfD. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages

Hi Avicennasis, just a suggestion for future reference, but when you see a spammy user talk page like User talk:Aaarian, it might be best just to blank the spam. If we delete the talk page other editors won't see warnings from others. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken, and now better understood after gaining more experience around the 'pedia. :) Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested an account on the ACC account creation interface

Per the instructions, "In order to complete the process, please make a confirmation edit to your user talk page. In this edit, note that you requested an account on the ACC account creation interface, and use a descriptive edit summary so that we can easily find this edit." Avicennasis @ 03:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The reply I recieved:
Dear Avicennasis,
Your account Avicennasis has been declined access to the account creation tool.
"Thank you for your interest in helping other users to create accounts. Unfortunately, your application was unsuccessful on this occasion. This is because there is no particular backlog or shortage of users for the system; therefore, Wikipedians with comparatively little editing experience aren't generally offered access. Please feel free to apply again in a few months, once you have gained more experience."
- The English Wikipedia Account Creation Team

Comment by HJ-DO

Hi. Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia and all, but I haven't made any contributions yet, so don't thank me for them, please. I am pretty confused by Wikipedia, and I think it's going to be a while before I feel confident enough to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ-DO (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. My goal with adding the welcome message was to leave some useful info for you to get familiar with Wikipedia. It too me a while to get the hang of, so I try to make it easier for others to learn. The welcome message is based off of a template, which is why it listed contributions, even though you don't have any yet. If you ever need help or have a question, feel free to ask! Avicennasis @ 04:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jens Meurer

Hello Avicennasis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jens Meurer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Known for films such as is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the FYI. :) Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks

Avicennasis,

Thanks for the help clarifying the guidelines on neutral point of view. I just joined Wikipedia and need to learn the rules before making changes. Phastings111 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If there is anything you need assistance on, feel free to ask me, or ask at the Help Desk. There are people all around that are willing to help. Avicennasis @ 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your correction of my correction or cunfusion?

Greetings.. Thanks for editing my comment on the page/subject of (Patrick) Osmund Lewry. I actually considered the explanation you gave, but,thought the writing needed to reflect a clearer idea. You might have guessed that I'm new to redactions on Wikipedia. Sorry for including comments in an area where I wasn't supposed to! I will attempt to follow your instructions IF I consider making edits on my subsequent visits. I happen to 'go to wikipedia' most every day, and, I've contributed to this 'online-encyclopedia'. Thanks again for your assistance, and, I have not taken any offence to you, to your keyboard, nor do I wish to slap you with a trout. Regards!Tt...ch*10*.. somewhere in the sw us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoulerchi10* (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I am always here to help, should you need any assistance. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks for leaving me a motivation message. Kind Regards...--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No prolem! I can't wait to see the positive contributions from you! Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks very much for the welcome message. Made me feel accepted right away :)

Thanks again - GodlySoldier (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! This is my goal - to help new editors! Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eye on the horizon

Hello Avicennasis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eye on the horizon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to albums. Dreadzone has an article, so A9 doesn't apply either. You could consider PROD or AfD - I'm not sure it passes WP:NALBUMS. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. :) Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Help EricKorevaar

Hello,

I had some content deleted due to its being a conflict of interest. I followed messages and links, and ended up here. Hopefully you will be able to help me.

I edited the entry on the California 2010 Lieutenant Governor election, because I am running for Lieutenant Governor. I used my real name (EricKorevaar) for the user name, as I was trying to be transparent. I am just as much a candidate as anyone else listed on the web page, and feel that it is fair to be included. My candidate statement has been posted at the California Secretary of State's website, along with those of the other candidates who submitted statements, so that is a good reference now for the whole page to be updated with current information. All of my candidacy paperwork has been filed with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, but it may still be a few days before there is an official list of candidates.

How should I proceed to get the information listed again? I do have a conflict of interest in having it posted, but that does not make the information any less accurate, and I am sure the main editor of the page (is there such a person) would include the information in due course.

Thank you,

Eric Korevaar Candidate for California Lieutenant Governor in the June 8, 2010 primary election

EricKorevaar (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Eric, and welcome to Wikipedia. The reason I reverted the edit was not because of the addition of your name to the list - it was because of the website. To me, it seemed the website was in violation of the Advertisements policy here. However, after looking at the websites for the other candidates, they seem to be no better, per the same policy. I have reviewed many of the older articles here for other elections in the US, and it seems the consensus is to allow these websites within the relevant articles.

In short, I had not fully researched before I removed the edits, and have since restored them. You can see the current article here. --Avicennasis 04:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review

Greetings! I've just done an editor review on you. You can find it here (you know, where you last left it :). I hope you find my thoughts helpful, and please do let me know if you have any additional questions. I enjoyed reading your contributions, as I would with anybody who is as clearly a positive contributor to the encyclopedia as you are. Take care. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kayamkulam

You're quite welcome. I was curious what it looked like, so I opened the page, and it still didn't display properly. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...can I trust that you're really thankful, given your hatnote? It seems that you probably didn't mean to thank me :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I had never heard of a hatnote until now, and reading over the article, I'm not sure what I may have that classifies as one. Regardless, I fully intended to extend my thanks. You did help out, and you did so quietly, without seeking praise. I only wanted to let you know that people do appreciate your actions. --Avicennasis 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I meant your editnotice, not a hatnote: "Assume good faith - Whatever I did/said, I probably didn't mean to." I'm joking; sorry to have confused you. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah. It all makes sense now. :) Thanks for the clarification, and no worries about the mix-up - I now know what a hatnote is, and anything that expands my knowledge can't be a bad thing. --Avicennasis 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The 22 Letters

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 22 Letters , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Plad2 (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice - my editing involvment to this article is minor, but I will see if I can assist. (Assuming this has not already been taken care of.) Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

orphan

I surmise that in this instance you looked at what links from the article space and clicked on "hide redirects" and saw only two links, one from a list. But nine articles linked through redirects. I've fixed those now, so all 11 links are visible when redirects are hidden. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This was related to a bug in AWB which is discussed below, and now on AWB's bug page. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Edits to Hebrew text of Ein Keloheinu

Hi. I'm wondering if you have a source for your change to Ein Keloheinu. It doesn't match the current transliteration, nor does it match the external links. Thanks a lot! Wrelwser43 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, my Hebrew is rusty, so I will admit I used some translators to help me. At the time, I was unaware of the external link for a comparison. I have restored the prior version for the time being, and will reach out to some friends with a much deeper knowledge of the language than my own. I believe the last line (אתה הוא שהקטירו אבותינו לפניך את קטרת הסמים) should be more like (אַתָּה הוּא אלֹהֵינו, אַתָּה הוּא אֲדוֹנֵינו, אַתָּה הוּא מַלְכֵּנו, אַתָּה הוּא מוֹשִׁיעֵנו. ). I will admit I should have read more into the article, and perhaps only changed the portions that seem to be off. I had intended to review this edit after the fact, but failed to follow-up as I had planned. -Avicennasis @ 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Avicennasis. You have new messages at Mo ainm's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mo ainm~Talk 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Scam

I didn't say wix.com is a scam, and I may have been wrong. I have never heard of it before, so I figured it must be insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggbertx (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to a comment left on your talk page - although I was not the original poster of the comment. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Prod to AfD

I've noticed you'd nominated Skye englert a few times for Prod, despite removal. I've procedurally nominated it for AFD. Please add your explanation at that page. My nomination is neutral. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I have added a reply to the discussion, although the original nominator was Reconsider the static. I have informed him of this on his talk page. Avicennasis @ 09:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Everything looks good procedurally, although I'd hope the other creator comments. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
For interested parties, this was deleted. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

SOCKS orphan tag

Hi,

You recently added an {{orphan}} tag to SOCKS. Admittedly it didn't have many direct links at the time thanks to a misguided page move to SOCKS (Protocol) (now undone), but there were at least 50 articlespace links from the redirects. Did I miss something? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The tag was a suggestion of AutoWikiBrowser. I would have thought that an Internet Protocol would have at least 3 links, which is why I was surprised when it showed up as a suggestion. I have since removed the orphan tag - it may have been a false positive. Avicennasis @ 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As I say, at the time the page had been moved to SOCKS (Protocol), so all the inbound links were redirects. However, that seems to be a bug in AWB, as it should also take into consideration the number of inbound links via redirects, which it apparently didn't do. You might want to raise a bug report; unfortunately I'm not familiar with AWB or I'd do it myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I will submit a report later this evening, as I am currently indisposed for anything other than quick tasks. Thanks again for the heads up. Avicennasis @ 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing the criteria for an orphaned article It states: "For the purposes of the strict definition, the following pages do not count toward the three incoming links:

  • Disambiguation pages
  • Redirects (but the links to the redirects count)
  • Soft redirects
  • Discussion pages of articles
  • Wikipedia pages outside of article space"

So, not counting redirects, it was technically an orphaned article. (at least, if I am reading the second bullet correctly.) Avicennasis @ 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the exception in parentheses in the second point means "while redirects don't count towards the three links, links to those redirects do". As such, the ~50 links to SOCKS would have counted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is exactly what it means. Avicennasis, the incoming links from redirects DO count. It looks like you've been adding the orphan tag to several articles that are definitely not orphans, such as Sándor Radó (14 incoming links), and others I have yet to check. Please be more careful in the future when adding the orphan tag. -- œ™ 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
AWB must not be counting redirects. Going to the Sándor Radó article, and seeing what links there from article space and hiding redirects shows only two - this must be what AWB saw for the less than three links, prompting the tag. I have filled out a bug report for this here. In the meantime, I will cease adding orphan tags unless I manually verify the need for such. Avicennasis @ 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for filling out that bug report. I didn't know it was AWB that was automatically prompting you to add the tag, if that was the case then the fault lies with AWB and it needs to be fixed ASAP. -- Ϫ 22:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. For interested parties, tt seems the discussion has been taken to the bug form I filled out. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

orphan

There are a whole lot of links and references that are footnoted in this article. Please explain your 'orphaning' of this article as other articles under " Fijian Nobility" are way less referenced and linked as this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonocan (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me which article you are referring to, and I will gladly explain my reasoning. Avicennasis @ 04:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I would assume that Jonocan is referring to Taukei ni Waluvu (only one link from articlespace), which he de-tagged here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. At the time, when I had checked his contribs, the last edit I saw was to my talk page. Your edit summary explains the tag perfectly: "only one other article links to this one. it doesn't matter how high-quality this article is if nobody is ever directed to it; links need to be added to it from relevant articles" Thanks for the heads up. Avicennasis @ 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Dont change the south park episode edits as they are all correct

As i indicated, mr Hotz is present and quite concerned credit was not given where due.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.110.203 (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. IF you can source the edits you have made, you will be fine, and they will not be reverted. :) If I can help, please let me know. Avicennasis @ 05:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

welcome

welcome to www.{{redacted}}.com the quality of our products are good,and price is reasonable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.83.254.120 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

UAA tags

I would personally prefer it if anyone who leaves {{uw-username}} on a talk page would leave a note at UAA if that was where they came from. It would avoid the duplication of effort. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clairification. :) Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeitlin

My edits consisted of deleting dead links-- "clean up". So while they may not have APPEARED to be consturctive, they were.

-RSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSS2010 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Avicennasis @ 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

UAA

I know you've tried to engage user:Facial Cum Shot, but that is a blatant username vio. I've blocked. -- Flyguy649 talk 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured this would happen. I was just trying to assume good faith, since this user didn't have any negative contributions. At least that I could see - the deletion log may have some entries on him. I approve of the block. :) (Not that you need my approval or anything...) Avicennasis @ 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:UAA#Just checking

Just alerting you since your comments are involved. Just to be clear, my question isn't disapproval of any kind; I have always championed the idea that non-admins should get the same respect admins do in discussions of what admin action to take (although sometimes the amount of respect admins get is "not much" :). I'm just wondering what's the appropriate action for me to take in my usual routine. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that the usernames are promotional, and they have not replied to concerns of their username or anywhere else, I would say it's fair to {{Uw-softerblock}}. The only reason I try to help, is that logging in to Wikipedia and seeing a new message that expresses concern over their username is a little less bitey than logging in to a "You are blocked" message. (Don't get me wrong - important policies should override WP:BITE). My goal is only to assist the user in understanding why their account may be blocked soon, and try to assist them in that effort. (So fat, I've only gotten one...) I won't pretend to have enough experience to know when to discuss or when to simply ban, and I will accept any admin's judgment over my own. If there is anyway I can improve or help out more, please let me know. If my "assistance" at WP:UAA is causing more harm/confusion than actual help, I won't be offended if asked to stop. :) Avicennasis @ 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to the patrollers and admins whether they'd prefer not to see "talking to user" messages at UAA for usernames that would usually be softerblocked; I think it just depends on what the patrollers find least confusing. I was just wanting feedback on what I should do ... I think people are saying I should go ahead and block if there are promotional edits, there's no evidence that the user is responding, and the name would normally be softerblockable. Thanks for your work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree: go ahead and block if there are promotional edits, there's no evidence that the user is responding, and the name would normally be softerblockable. As long as there is some window to respond, (I.E., we should not be putting username warnings telling them to change it and then blocking 2 minutes later when they haven't done such yet), and there has been no positive response, then a block is in order. Avicennasis @ 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token b795a94e428f38b5b3735d6d6f7d7341

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Guitarist
Helle (mythology)
Triumph of the Nerds
Logic Express
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
East Timor
MacTerminal
Military of Belgium
Pinball Dreams
MacDraw
Japan
United States
NeXTcube
Athens
Manitoba Museum
Ostara
New Jersey
Jahannam
Phrixus
Cleanup
21st century
PlayStation 3
IWork
Merge
List of national capitals
Slavery
Indecent exposure
Add Sources
Eddy Gordo
Tekken Advance
Adobe Flash
Wikify
Revised Julian calendar
New World ROM
Duel Masters
Expand
Internet forum
Heihachi Mishima
Pope Benedict XVI

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested rights at The Test Wiki

I am Avicennasis on The Test Wiki. Avicennasis @ 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested IRC cloak on freenode

Would like the cloak "Wikipedia/Avicennasis". Avicennasis @ 03:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

209.128.10.138

Did I mention you get feedback free of charge? People generally go to WP:OP for a conclusive response: yes, no, or inconclusive. So, what would your conclusion be? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes. I have stamped it. Although I cannot access it right now, it seems to have a history of being a proxy, and again, I did not port scan/SOCKS proxy every port. I have now stamped it. (Hopefully OK, as it didn't say it was for Verified users only.) Thanks for the feedback - always appreciated. Avicennasis @ 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It's a wifi hotspot, and any mentions of it's use as a proxy are short lived and well over a year ago. Even your comments agree that it's not open. Perhaps you could re-read my earlier replies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the entries I found in Google were less than a year old - one was 8 months ago (can't find it now...) Also, per Project Honeypot, malicious activity was seen from this IP 6 months, 3 weeks ago. There was a post of a list of SOCKS proxies to the "warez" site sdwarez.org that included this IP last September. Currently no open ports, though a few are filtered, and if this public Wifi spot has been reconfigured as a proxy once, we have no idea if any mesures or security have been changed to stop it from happening again.
Nmap Results

Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap ) at 2010-03-31 03:06 Eastern Daylight Time
Interesting ports on 209.128.10.138:
Not shown: 65528 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
135/tcp filtered msrpc
136/tcp filtered profile
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds
1720/tcp filtered H.323/Q.931

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 73.015 seconds

Again, just my thoughts, I try to balance out pros and cons... Since there is no *recent* indication that this IP has been used as a proxy in the past 3 months or so, I would say that it is no longer an open proxy. This history, if not the damage, remain though... If the determination is made at the time of investigation, then I would say no, currently, this is not an open proxy. Avicennasis @ 07:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You'll notice many requests at WP:OP are from IPs which were once blocked as open proxies, but are now requesting unblock. We normally end up unblocking them, regardless of the history - give or take - if they are not open proxies then they are not open proxies and they are only causing collateral damage. That is, unless they are part of an obvious rotation which makes it highly likely they will be again. Timing is a crucial matter with open proxies as the majority (especially HTTP/SOCKS proxies) are closed within a few months, often less. This is what makes Project Honeypot and other DNSBLs very unreliable. Once you get listed you're pretty much stuck on that list, even if the computer has been re-installed and the IP reassigned. Google results likewise; they often have a timestamp somewhere close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So the long and the short of it comes down to whether or not it's an open proxy right now. Ok. History forgotten, make the most of today. I understand. Verdict changed. Avicennasis @ 07:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More accurately, whether it's going to be an open proxy in the near future. There's an {{inconclusive}} tag which can be used on some occasions. In some cases we just let them sit on the board for a while until it becomes clearer. Some IPs for example are shut down at night and weekends. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. A much better plan, indeed. :) I will poke and prod around the project for a bit - kind of hang back and watch, investigate but not leap to tagging right away. There is a method to the madness, I'm sure, and I will pick it up sooner or later. Avicennasis @ 08:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hallo, thanks for the speedy assistance!Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to ask for help any time, either with the {{helpme}} tag or asking on my talk page. Avicennasis @ 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

igloo

Thanks for your interest in igloo. You have been added to the script whitelist, and the program should now allow you to connect. Ale_Jrbtalk 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will have to try it out shortly. Avicennasis @ 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)`

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avicennasis/MainArchive/2010Q1&oldid=1139307002"