User talk:Someguy1221/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

---

(Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)
(Archive 2, July 2008 - April 2009)
(Archive 3, April 2009 - November 2009)
(Archive 4, November 2009 - July 2011)
(Archive 5, July 2011 - December 2012)

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do. We need more Wikipedians like you :)

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

SPI clerking

Someguy1221, given you have only made three edits in the last three months to SPI cases, it appears you are mostly inactive as an SPI clerk now. Please stand down as a clerk or move yourself to inactive (whichever you prefer) so that we can get a better idea of how many active clerks we have. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair (to myself) I have only been a clerk trainee for little over a week - a decision made by bearean just as I was going inactive for the holidays. My general activity will return to normal once the new year comes around, but feel free to move me to the inactive section if you think that's best. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and moved myself to the inactive section. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware you've just been made a clerk trainee. My apologies. Either way, thanks for moving yourself to inactive, and feel free to move yourself back when you return to activity. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Steubenville, Ohio

Just a heads up, I undid your edit to the Steubenville article. That content's inclusion in the lead was subject to a recent discussion on the talk page. I appreciate your observation that the cited reference did not reflect international coverage. I have remedied the situation by adding two additional references, one from the Guardian, the other from CBC News. Cheers. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on the SPI. Please elaborate. I don't know what you are talking about. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

Hi Someguy1221,

Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia. I appreciate your attentiveness to my SPI request.

Your response was rather harsh. And, I am clearly not a well seasoned editor. So, If you could cut some slack, I would appreciate it.

What constitutes serious evidence? I took a look at some of the other SPIs. Very vague statements in many of them... and checks are done. And, quite often something is found.

I am witnessing some form of WP:GAMING, or meta-activity. It is systematic; not coincidence. If I were to go in there and move a comma, SouthernNights would be on it in a hot minute; while Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's edits to the extreme stand for months. Two accounts acting in concert. What do you call it?

You call the accusations baseless. But, how is it SouthernNights is the guy who deleted a profile, but insists on all the points made by the account he deleted?! That's not baseless. That's obvious!

You mention the account in question is an editor in good standing. Why is that relevant? They are in good standing until you find out they are gaming the system... Does being an administrator mean SouthernNights has enough clout the enjoy the privilege of being beyond suspicion? Someone who has been editing a lot would be more familiar with wikicheating, and be likely to carry out Sockpuppetry, and be very good at it. So, I don't accept that seniority has anything to do with being beyond reproach.

Many ThanksVerdad (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The alabamaboy account technically does not exist anymore, so it can't be anyone's sockpuppet. So we are left with comparing SouthernNights and Alf. And that is the comparison for which the sockpuppetry accusation is baseless. If two people agreeing with eachother is evidence of sockpuppetry, we would have an SPI case on every active editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A very sincere "thank you" for continuing this discussion with me. Please believe me when I say fair, honest, and respectful editing is very important to me- as important as the article referenced in the SPI request. I don't edit a lot. So, I don't have access to the check user box. That means I have to go at this pretty blindly. The only way I know how to find out about what I suspect is going on is to request SPI.

I see your point that 2 users agreeing is not evidence of sock puppetry. I agree that you are right about that. And I hope you will agree I am not your sock puppet for doing so.  :) Maybe if this isn't a clearcut case of sock puppetry, you can direct me to answers to my general concerns.

I wish I had known there was such thing as WP:GAMING a long time ago. No one explained that to me. Gosh, if I had known there was an article on it... Because, what I have experienced it pretty much "textbook."

Yeah, user:Alabamaboy technically does not exist anymore. That is part of my point. They both have edited the same article in the past. SouthernNights "closed out"/deleted Alabamaboy. SouthernNights takes up the same positions, with the exact same points, and has the exact same syntax as Alabamaboy. Either it's the same person with multiple accounts, or there are two users who know each other so well that one user with experience editing the same articles as another is chosen out of a whole universe of administrators to close that user's account. It was this that first raised my suspicion. Has SouthernNights (not the account, but the person who controls it) engaged in sock puppetry in the past? I think this is important to know, especially when he appears to be acting in concert with another active account.

Both users - SouthernNights and Alf- have extensive edit history and well maintained user pages. If I were investigating SP, at a glance it would seem ludicrous that anyone would even suggest one of those accounts is a sock; and I can see how someone would deal with the request fairly harshly.

In reading up on sock puppetry, I see a section on meat puppetry; which is considered as the same bad conduct. Again... gosh, if I had known there is practically an instruction manual for that strategy.... (If I had know there was editing "strategy" in the first place!)

This speaks more toward general philosophy on good faith editing, and may be a can of worms; but, how do you enforce meat puppetry abuses? Do I need to show that these two users know each other personally, and that there is offline collaboration. I don't think I could do that.

Does collaboration have to be expressed or implicit? Is it allowable to be complicit with edits from one editor whose POV is closer to one's own, while draconian toward a different POV? Can a user breach consensus building agreements by non-action with regards to editors with similar POV and action with regards to editors with competing POV? Do you agree a well seasoned editor would know what would constitute as bad faith editing, and take steps to avoid such an accusation.

Can one user stonewall another user- wikilawyer, invoke guidelines with little explanation, threaten to ban, block, etc with no reason and little warning- while allowing another user with a similar POV to tinker with the article in question?

When I say I feel there is a systematic effort to promote one POV, I mean a disciplined strategic effort to portray an institution in a negative light which violates the principles of good faith editing. Maybe, in time, I will find a term for it. But, for now, I just have to describe to you what is going on.

I am dealing with some serious challenges in the article Montgomery Academy. It is an article about a private school in the US South, founded in the late 1950s, that has for much of its existence lacked any measurable amount of student diversity. You can imagine the implications. The school is exclusive and elitist. Its acceptance rate is low, and its attrition rate is high. The school has more enemies than friends.

I know first hand it was founded by individuals who valued education, who wished to send their children to elite post-secondary institutions; and realized they were approaching their formative years. The school has always officially maintained in its published documents and on its website it was founded simply to provide a better education. It says nothing about race or politics. Maybe I'm wrong about this. I believe an institution's self description should take precedence over outside POV, no matter what the prevailing public opinion is.

The article about Montgomery Academy experiences rapid drift toward one POV- a very negative one. It doesn't take long to get boiled down to just a few elements (meaning entries about the school's campus, athletics, and academics are systematically deleted) and for the article to become an exploration portal for segregation academies. At least one of the founders of the school is still a living person, and most of the first students are certainly living. So, the characterization that the school was founded in the spirit of continued segregation is particularly damaging.

In the process of building the article, SouthernNights first created the page as a stub which asserted the school was founded in the spirit of segregation. He had no sources at the time, and set about mining quotes. For that reason, there is some very severe recontextualization involved in the cited sources. Anyway, "reliable sources" aren't always reliable, right?

For example, take Allen v. Wright. Concerned parents sued the federal government in the 1980s to reassess the tax status of nonprofits which received municipal funding and furnished facilities for youngsters in a city where neighborhoods were de facto segregated and private schools lacked diversity. Somehow - and this is totally beyond my understanding- this Supreme Court case was construed as evidence the Montgomery Academy was founded as a seg academy. In another instance, he cites a book with a limited run of publication in response to my questioning his prior sources. 2 weeks later, and -thanks to the good people at Amazon- $49 lighter, I find out the quote in question is taken COMPLETELY out of context. In fact, while very educating, the passage paints a much different picture than what SouthernNights asserts it does.

It is issues like this that SouthernNights is unwilling to begin to compromise, or even have a discussion. My attempts to collaborate in good faith are met with WP:LAWYERING. It seems to me he is very disciplined in the strategy. This, of course, does not jibe with the 5 Pillars. That is, Wikipedia is here to provide truthful, relevant, accurate, and informative content to interested readers; and editors should come to collaborate in an constructive way, and in good faith.

What do you suggest I do? Does the fact there is something of substance to the issue of SouthernNights/Alabamaboy have any bearing on SouthernNights' treatment of the article and Alf? What is my recourse if I am being silenced by an administrator bent on a specific POV?

Thanks again.Verdad (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll start this off by saying I have had two sockpuppet investigations opened on me in the past, so I don't consider having been accused of sockpuppetry in the past to hold much weight. That said, with the exception of the investigation you opened and I deleted, there had never been an investigation opened on SouthernNights (or the person behind the account) in the past. But I'd like to put a final nail in the coffin of concerns over Alabamaboy: Sockpuppetry is not inherently prohibited. Abusive sockpuppetry is. So even if we assumed that Southern and Alabama are the same person, since neither is under sanctions and they are not acting in concert, there is no abuse. As long as the Alabamaboy account remains dead, there's no point even investigating it.

Now, regarding meatpuppetry, it is almost impossible to prove unless the actors behind it are stupid. Typically it gets caught because it's just so freakin' obvious, as with two new accounts being registered the same day and leaping into the same content dispute. And sometimes it gets caught because the strategy was discussed on a public web forum.

In any event, the solution to this, for you, is the same thing I recommend to almost everyone in almost every situation: Get more people involved. Go look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. There are many noticeboards, such as WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN where you can get guidance on particular issues. You can draw other editors to the article's talk page through WP:3O and WP:RFC. If your changes to the article are the clear improvement that you believe they are, show that to editors who are not involved in the dispute, and they will see it. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the process, and its burdens of proof, and for the info on 3O and RFC. I just didn't know about those. That's amazing that there is a forum to get other editors interested in an article. I thought I was getting double-teamed and out of options.

I noticed you do a lot of editing and policing around scientific topics. I think that is awesome. And I don't envy the work that I'm sure goes with it.

		Wikipedia Administrator's Award
		THANK YOU! Verdad (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Verdad (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oversight of feedback with email addresses

I see the following when I click "Request for oversight":

Before requesting oversight, please check that this post includes one of these issues:

• phone numbers
• e-mail addresses
• pornographic links
• defamatory/libelous comments about a person
• other criteria for oversight

Even on the monitors page, it says "This is generally used for highly inappropriate posts such as private phone numbers, email addresses, pornographic links or other criteria for oversight." (Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Monitors#How can I request oversight?)

All of the documentation points to oversight of email addresses. Is the tool's documentation on oversight criteria outdated? If not, why did you decline oversight to some of my requests? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The documentation was simply never accurate to begin with. The only email addresses that are consistently oversighted are those that can be positively connected to a real person's identity. So, My name is Bob johnson, and my email is psychoticmonkeyfart@email.net gets oversighted. Potentially so does feedback of just Robert.H.Johnson@server.com, but that's at the oversighter's discretion. But plain old clown@fart.com is almost never oversighted, and hiding is enough. Sorry for the confusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks – I knew there had to be a reason. If I get the chance I'll try to update the documentation. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rivertorch (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RH - revdel

Thanks, are you able to take out the edit summaries as well? As they pretty much explain what the problem info was. Many regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at those when I was drawn away from my computer. Now done. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response. Have a good evening! Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess this section is about the article I'm thinking of. I just removed another comment from the same user at the article talk page. I don't know if it warrants revdel, but you may like to look. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Depressingly he is still going. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I raised the issue at ANI in the hope of getting the attention of a couple of other admins for the article as it is obvious that even when the current problem is solved, there will be other enthusiasts wanting to post links and discuss the gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Curtaintoad

Hello. Hey, why did you remove some of my talk page? CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 09:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically for similar reasons as the other removals. Please do not restore that information or any similar information to any page on this site. --Rschen7754 09:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

unblock on hold at User talk:Doktorspin

They are arguing that there are two Wikipedians living in the same house and they used the other one's account by mistake. I don't see any real compelling reason not to believe them, and one would assume the blocks have already sent the message not to let such a thing happen again. The first admin on the scene seems unconvinced that it was an accident though. Consulting with you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As the other clerk on the case, even if that is true, it's a self-confessed violation of shared accounts. But there's enough evidence to suggest otherwise. --Rschen7754 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to take a "never assume malice when ignorance will suffice" approach to these things, and I see some indication of that same perspective at the SPI. Of course it is basically impossible for us to actually know for certain what their intent was. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorally, I think it is far more likely there is only one person behind both accounts. To me, this is reinforced even more by the fact that despite being aware of the screw up for some time, neither account offered a defense until after checkuser results came in. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have opened a block review at WP:AN in order to solicit more input regarding these blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

• Thanks for your comment, but I was appalled by the stuff I read there, and I got your message after I finished. What I wrote relates to the administrators of the article who are gaming the system because for some reason someone has decided that someone of Oprea's caliber is not notable enough for an entry. I have been trying to bring heaps of references, translated material, but it didn't help and I am really upset by this behavior. People such as Andrei Codrescu, Norman Manea, Vladimir Tismaneanu to name but a few endorse his work, but it seems that it is not enough for The Red Pen of Doom. And this makes me angry, because in a scientific article when you quote others the claim becomes accepted. Sorry to dump this on you.Sensei2004 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• • There are no "article administrators". Administrators exist almost exclusively to police editor behavior, which is what four accounts (all the same person) banned during that Sockpuppet investigation. Matters of content are left solely to editors, and there is no authority to "appeal" to. If you don't like how the article looks, and consensus is against you, try pursuing one of the many options at dispute resolution. I had a look at the talk page, and what I see is that many of the editors contributing there are some very experienced and very respected members of the community. They generally know what they're talking about when it comes to Wikipedia policy, and their only interest in that article is keeping it up to Wikipedia's standards. No one is trying to game the system, and no one is trying to sneakily get rid of Oprea's article. If they believed he was not notable, there would already be a deletion discussion underway. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment. The article you see now is substandard from the point of view of accuracy. This is a new version, after an older version had a banner of possibly lacking notability and there also many notes on "citations needed"...And when I finished inserting all the citations that were needed the article was replaced with this one (and was eventually wikified but not by either USER:RED Pen of Doom or USER: MSJAPAN. Oprea has about 15 books to his name, they insist on listing only 5 and whenever I add details they erase them. And the USER: Red Pen of Doom (who was also the one who thought that I am a sockpuppet or whatever) takes things personally. I take things personally because it is my work they are deleting, and everything I add is based on more than one reference. But because it comes from me they erase it. He even called the article crap and claimed that LO has sucked WP resources for too long. I actually lost faith in him and in USER: MSJAPAN because of the language they use and the way they behave. As I am a professional editor and make a living writing (not this entry of course)scientific material based on references, believe me that this behavior is frustrating to say the least. Btw, there are only two editors contributing, myself and USER: Biruitorul (who wrote the new version but has stopped putting material about two weeks ago, all the others are only deleting anything I insert. And this 'investigation' in itself was also something that should not have happened if somebody wasn't geared on sabotaging this entry. This is how it looks from my viewpoint. And yes, I am thinking about dispute resolution but I am yet to study the process and the possible outcomes. It is unacceptable for anyone familiar with the subject matter to see only five books listed out of 15, and his biography distorted to cover about four years out of 30. Why? because he published with X-Libris and they don't like it. What has this got to do with the wikipedia standards? This is arbitrary use of the power to delete in my view Anyway, as I said, sorry to dump this on you and thanks for your input.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Sensei2004 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Dombrowski

I'm confused. I thought you had blocked Jennifer Dombrowski's IP indefinitely, but it appears she's editing under the IP again. I didn't see any appeal to the block. Am I missing something? -- Mesconsing (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was confused too. The template I left there was a mistake. I deliberately blocked her for only a couple days, IIRC, and simply failed to put a time into the template, causing it to default to indefinite. The temporariness was solely because I have no idea how dynamic the IP is. Nonetheless, JD is only permitted to edit from her original account, and I have reblocked the IP. Thanks for letting me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just easier to keep track of what's going on if she edits using only her username. -- Mesconsing (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Che Arthur

Hiya. I opened a SPI on Che Arthur d/t various issues with the presentation of information, creation/deletion of multiple accounts, possible sockpuppet, etc. One thing I noticed was a large number of IP edits with a /WHOIS coming from Dublin, Ireland. I'm sure this is purely coincidental, but an admin closed the AfD as "no consensus" that the SPI was addressing while the SPI is active, and the admin User:Stifle hails from, of all places, Ireland. Could we get the closure undone while the SPI is open? Just to cover everything so we can just assume good faith and all until it's cleared up. I notified the admin as well so he knows. Яεñ99 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you point me to the SPI? I don't see it in your contributions history, so maybe you changed IP or forgot to log in. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on the current WP:SPI list in the middle. It's listed as Che Arthur and opened by me Ren99 Яεñ99 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

copy/paste current SPI info: Chearthur open 2013-01-29 11:28 UTC Ren99 2013-01-29 17:23 UTC Someguy1221 2013-01-29 11:32 UTC Яεñ99 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the SPI as no action required. I agree that all these IP addresses are Che Arthur, but I do not agree that there is any violation of the sockpuppetry policy. I see no evidence that Che tried to give the appearance he was four different people. Rather, the most obvious explanation is what I originally wrote - Che has a very dynamic dial up IP (it would change every time he turns his modem. Yes, one is listed as static, but that's just nonsense), and he doesn't always log in. Neither of these is a violation. I would recommend you take it up with Stifle if you would like the AFD result reviewed, or get any recommendations on what to do next. I can assure you that Stifle is certainly not a sock of Che. I think he would sooner punch himself in the face than make sockpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I read his bio, and I have to fully agree that not only would he prefer to wonk himself in the face first, but any so called "puppets" in arms distance may get bonked as well! Gotta love the Irish (don't tell him I said that) And yes, I'm getting better at my Wiki diplomacy :) I sure hope Che is not offended, my greatest hope is that he put forth that final 1% and make the big $$ everyone who suffers in the Music Biz deserves. God knows I suffered YEARS for the (6) Gold and Platinum awards I have hanging on my walls, and all I did was promote the artist's records! (they promised me a whole lot more of them, but hey, The Black Album by Metallica was almost good enough alone when I closed out my territory with all stations reporting #1) I don't mean to be a stickler on what the music industry means by accomplished, I am just certain that I do know what it is! Яεñ99 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OS

Thank you for the advice. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User:GOALWAY

Hi. I noticed that you were involved in the sockpuppet investigation of this user and this IP, 173.63.52.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has made a very similar revision at Abdallah Deeb that GOALWAY has, GOALWAY's revision and IP's revision. That IP has also made a number of edits to other Jordanian football pages, just as what GOALWAY likes to do. GOALWAY is blocked indefinitely so I think it should looked into. Banana Fingers (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Elockid (talk · contribs) took care of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Possibly more block evading, this time it's 75.99.159.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same type of edits just like the one in the Abdallah Deeb page that I have mentioned above. Banana Fingers (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

re: socks at Montgomery Bell Academy

Since you blocked User:RickyBowers66, I thought I would bring this to you. User:NodoHorchata showed up yesterday, making virtually the same edits as ricky. FYI---do what you wish with it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and reopened the SPI. Thanks for letting me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Hi. Can you please go back to this case asap and CLOSE it. There have been numerous instances of disruption in the past by someone suspected of being User:Richard Daft but there is no problem with this guy CDomm, other than his questionable retaliation to a bad IP attack, and he should not have the SPI "cloud" hanging over him. I have been one of the two main targets of "Daft" so I should know and I have been on the site now for over seven years. The nomination by a relatively new editor was a knee-jerk reaction. Cdomm is a potentially good editor with much to offer so let him get on with it. This "sockpuppet mindset" is OTT and helps no one. Thank you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the Wikipedia Page Digital Well File(Wellsite Data Distribution Concept)

Hi Someguy1221,

I had uploaded a content with the title "Digital Well File(Wellsite Data Distribution Concept)". The content was deleted by you a while back and I would like to request your assistance on this. I believe there was no evidence of the content being copied from another website. I also firmly believe that there were no names of companies/organizations in the content that served as an advertisement for a particular company/organization. If you could enlighten me why exactly this was deleted, I'll be much obliged. Thank you for reading.

Sureshbabu12345 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have three user accounts? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the three accounts belong to me. I apologize, but I'm a novice in the world of Wikipedia. I have tried uploading the content under different accounts, each time when any of the community member deletes it. I was of the notion that I'm supposed to create a new ID each time the content gets deleted. Now, I went further to learn that I can use the talk page to communicate with the community members using talk page. Hence, I started the discussion. So, could you let me know how I can revive the page I uploaded initially? Thanks in advance.

Sureshbabu12345 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to one account. Do you have any sources besides the conference exhibit? Wikipedia really is not for "new" things that have yet to receive any independent attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The AN/TPS vandal

User talk:181.152.87.247: Just a heads up. You blocked this nut from Colombia for 31 hours. He will be back. He started many years ago. Always the same MO. Always the same article. Started at 31 hours, and it soon grew into 1 year. He run out of IP addresses from home, school and work. Always from Colombia. Whenever he finds a a new unblocked IP he does it again. No other edits anywhere else. There are a few of us watchlisting this article. He gets 1 year for block evasion on sight. Check out the history of the article: AN/TPS-43 and you'll see him doing it over and over from 2006 non-stop. I watchlisted this new IP. Will block for 1 year next time. Note the article was not protected because it is only one guy and that will send him to a new article. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! I have changed the block length to 1 year. Thank you for letting me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Casilerrodeldiablo

I think the user Casilerrodeldiablo is the same person as User:Marcospace Jun19 (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've left a request for a checkuser to look into it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

For a check if Watchingeveryevent is a sockpuppet of User:Marteau, do i have to open a formal case at sockpuppet investigations? Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's already been looked into. Watching can't be conclusively connected to anyone. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Someguy please help block/unblock, thank you.

Someguy please help block/unblock, thank you. Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your block has already expired. That is why you were able to edit my talk page. Please stick to one account in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I have read all about the regulations now, and shall do the best to adhere to them in future. I am still new, but there is always room to learn and improve. Thank you for your help, signed Wikipatrolwatch.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting Dual Survival, 4th time is the charm hopefully. — - dain- talk    00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help on COI

You kindly semi-protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wheeldon and it has since been heavily edited with a bias against a single subject again. The version I edited it to contained up to date information such as a picture, spouse etc and I also tried to make sure the content itself was unbiased and covered full career. There are massive gaps now and it focuses on one topic. There is not a mention of my current main company So Purple Group. I have no issue with a genuinely unbiased page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwheeldonWiKi (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I protected the page to stop the edit war, but an administrator has no special authority to declare which version of an article should be in place. I would recommend pursuing dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

EolexMax

Hey Someguy, please have a look at the history of Sergio Goldvarg, where one finds EolexMax (talk · contribs) and Mocetuzoma VI (talk · contribs), both blocked as socks of ChronicalUsual; I have my doubts about the SPA Automotocrazy (talk · contribs). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

SG, thanks for your support during my RfA. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting my page so quickly! Excellent to know that such vigilant individuals contribute to wikipedia and to ensure that their help does not go without notice. Jab843 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I'm not even sure if I should be giving you more barnstars since you clearly have too many already. Certainly appreciated your promptness in offering advice and investigating a couple of SPIs. Mkdwtalk 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about block

What? You blocked me for correcting a broken link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.28.175 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can tell me what IP or username you were actually blocked under, I can give you more details. As it is, your IP has no other edits than to this talk page, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by user:Skipetari

Just a couple of hours after his 1 month block he performed his first edit as an unlogged editor [[1]]. It's obvious him since he did a similar edit in the german wiki the same time [[2]], not to mentions the ip location.Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing [3]. This is a Berlin IP with the same ISP as the IPs of User:Skipetari you just blocked [4], pushing the same Albanian national POV. Athenean (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thank you for letting me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, though it seems his IP range is crazily dynamic, which means we may yet see him sock again. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another of his ips [[5]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

and here [[6]]. Seems he won't give upAlexikoua (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he never uses the same IP for more than a few minutes, and he has access to multiple networks (perhaps one at home, one at work/school). Thus single blocks would likely be ineffectual. I would suggesting simply noting them down, and if this continues for a while despite his constantly being reverted, I may contemplate a range block. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sharmauiuc (talk · contribs)

Hi, Someguy. I'm not trying to get in your way, but I've warned this user regarding their threat of legal action. I recognize that this individual probably has no grasp of the situation and I phrased my warning with that in mind. You may have already considered action with regard to this situation and I will not proceed with my usual pace when I encounter NLT matters. If you have definite plans in mind, simply let me know here or my user talk. Regards Tiderolls 05:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead with whatever you would have done. I was only waiting because waiting for the checkuser result first would prevent us from potentially having to block him twice. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment regarding two blocks. However, NLT blocks are usually indef pending retraction (which the user is on the verge of making) while puppetmaster blocks are usually of a definite period. I thought it necessary to let the user know that, while the sockpuppet violation would more than likely result in a short block, the NLT vio would result in an indef block. As the NLT problem could be solved very easily I wanted that out of the way before any sockpuppet blocks were enacted. Tiderolls 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah, I was thinking the reverse. I didn't want to go through the bother of blocking for NLT, having him retract it, and then block him again for sockpuppetry. Just a matter of preference, and not any policy-based decision. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Konullu

You have been mentioned. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Persistent socking by Skipetari

He just keeps hopping from IP to IP [7] [8] [9] (all of them out of Berlin, all of them with Alice DSL as the ISP). Is there anything that can be done with this guy. There is just no stopping him. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. The necessary rangeblocks would potentially be blocking millions of people. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, thanks. It will just have to page protection from now on. Athenean (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And on that note, page is protected for three months. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you so much. That should help. Athenean (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68

Would it be possible to restore his talkpage access? At the moment the argument is going round in circles because he can't contribute to it, which means people are ascribing motvies to his conduct which can't be confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the emails from Cla that were posted to his talk page, I feel that he is trying to push the envelope, to see just how much he can get away with without being blocked again. The entire time since the first block, even in his emails to arbcom, he has seemed far more interested in proving he did nothing wrong than assure everyone he will not violate the outing policy. So no, I will not lift the talk page block. In any event, his appeal is and has been with Arbcom/BASC. I see no need for him to participate in the discussion on his talk page, on top of the fact I don't trust him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropping you a courtesy note to say that I have unblocked, as emails and posts by Cla68 have assured me that the reason for the block is moot. More on his talk page. Kevin (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Editfilter question

Hi,
Unfortunately, I can't see filter 534. Could you let me know which rules are being applied / which strings it's looking for? (Feel free to email if you don't want the information publicially available). I'd just like to check that it catches all the variations that the editor likes to try... bobrayner (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It simply looks for any addition of the editor's name to any page, as this seems to be a universal theme in his/her edits. The filter is set to private so that the rest of the information in the edits is not visible in the filter log. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Nice and straightforward! It is possible that they may move to other variations on their name whilst still giving away the really sensitive information (this has happened on another site) but we can't anticipate everything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs)

Tappan zee bridge

Hi, I posted an external link on the Tappan Zee Bridge wiki that was published on many individual Patch sites throughout the Hudson Valley and outlined the historical costs of the TZB. It was accompanied by the only graphic illustrating the structure's financial history.

I am just not sure why you considered it SPAM. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Krz11 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I considered it spam because you are linking to articles you have written yourself, which smacks of self-promotion. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

TZB

Thanks for your quick response. I have written a large number of articles, many of which should not be links from Wikipedia. But I honestly feel the article was a thoughtful, thorough, investigative piece containing information not found anywhere else (specifically the 1930's history. Why would I care if it comes up in search results..it was a regional story that came and went.

Thanks again for your time

69.124.148.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Por Por 2 not over

Another new account made and more empty edit requests. See my contribution history. HkCaGu (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent block of Ksdlafmaslkdfgg;aldsnk

When you blocked Ksdlafmaslkdfgg;aldsnk, you disabled talk page access and email. Was this intentional? It's a Fox! (What did I break) 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Given his deleted contribution, there is simply no need to entertain an unblock request from a troll like that. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

harassment

Thanks a lot for your intervention. Some cleanup might be required also on the talk page of the Higgs boson article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

He's at it again, without consensus

Help, or discuss, please. See WT:Notability (summary) for an unresolved discussion of the radical changes I asked you to revert previously. See WP:Notability (summary)(history now gone) and Template:Notability (summary) (history all here now, as if this was the primary article since inception). Another admin, User:JohnCD seems to oppose the change too if it alters the appearance: "V T E" appears now. I advocate doing it the same way as at NFC/NFCC, and having no template. Any template should simply tranclude the article (which can have <noinclude></noinclude>). The editor seems intent on having his template be "discoverable". Who cares? Gah. --Lexein (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I ran across Template:Notability (summary) again, and I wanted to make sure that you knew that pages don't have to be in the template namespace to be transcluded. With Template:Notability (summary), you type {{Notability (summary)}}, and with Wikipedia:Notability (summary), you would just add the namespace by typing {{Wikipedia:Notability (summary)}} to transclude it. It has the same effect. (Not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert at WP:SPI

My pc is exceedingly clunky, and I might have some "double click" issues - but I should have checked the entire page/history before sailing off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent block to my IP

Apparently a user named 'AnusFeast' was using the same shared-IP, is there any way for you to solely block him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinepamgems (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you've managed to edit Wikipedia in spite of that block, there is no need to. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason for that is that I live nextdoor to Starbucks. However I fear I may have overstayed my welcome by several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinepamgems (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TempName1 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Norman304

Even before the latest round of sock blocks, the same master now seems to be editing Lord Colvill as an IP - 92.238.189.170. Agricolae (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That IP is currently caught in an autoblock, even though nothing is shown. So he can't edit from it. If that IP returns to edit, just let me know, and I'll block for longer. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

California Polytechnic State University

Hello Someguy1221. I saw your name in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive. This suggests you might have advice on what to do about semiprotection of California Polytechnic State University. I opened a talk discussion at Talk:California Polytechnic State University#Semiprotection may be considered. The idea was to consider a really long semiprotection like a year or more. I hesitated to do this with no consultation since I don't know if the recent warring is due to Mangoeater1000 or something unrelated. Do you have an opinion on the semiprotection? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and done it. Semiprotection was a good idea. Mangoeater won't stay away from the articles otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 10:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

With my deepest gratitude for your help Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 10:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for explaining what I always considered to be one of the most complex and arcane elements of Wikipedia in terms my poor decaffeinated brain could understand. Hugely appreciated - plus there's now one more admin who can do these bastard merges. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oversight email

Took me a little bit to find you; there is no User:Somemguy1221 :-) Steward work sounds best; these accounts have started making quite the mess even in the last few hours, and an account created to attack another user started piling on the vandal messages onto my talk page, prompting someone else to protect it. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cheng Kejie

Hi. I don't think it was necessary to delete it, it was reworked by User:Deb. I agree that the other articles were terrible. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I feel bad for not checking each and every one. I should have been more careful. In fact, I'll go back through them now and see if any others were fixed. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Suspected socking

Suspected socking going on in Kunchacko Boban‎ and Dulquer Salmaan‎. The user User:Mollywood1 seems to be the sock of user User:Flowers_of_the_world who was blocked by you. JK (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You Got Mail

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Socks and more socks

Hi, Someguy, I'm up to my knees in socks today. I wanted to thank you for your comment at this report. It took me a ton of time to create the report, and it's nice of you to recognize that. Also, thanks for reopening the Lac47 report. I don't know what'll come of it, but it'll at least get a thorough airing. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Someguy1221/Archive 6, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 07:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayadevp13 07:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Badass" and "Bad Ass" at Daryl Dixon article

Hello, Someguy1221. If you didn't already know, this matter had been reported at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. And just like I predicted, the person has revealed his or her Wikipedia account is trying to continue the problematic behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BO | Talk 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 90 minutes...

... when caught for sockpuppetry and a (disguised) attack on my work? Be sure, this not makes me happy. The Banner talk 01:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What he did is permanently marked in his block log and his SPI case, and I have forbidden him from interacting with you through any sockpuppets. My unblock was meant only to reflect that I no longer felt he was at risk of violating the sock policy. If you feel there are other harassment concerns, I would ask you to bring them up on ANI for another administrator to review. I actually think that, given his socking, asking for an interaction ban at ANI would be entirely reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly not done yet: [10] The Banner talk 03:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That is concerning. I left Oren a warning that he should avoid interacting with you in the future, but made clear that any further harassment will lead to his block being reinstated. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

User:London at night

Hello, you have blocked Flowers of the world on March 20, 2013 for sock puppetry. Now a new user London at night has surfaced who shows the same editing patter as Flowers of the world. I request you to kindly look into this. Salih (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for the help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

My thanks to you and your team for your hard work and for publishing the results that fast. I do appreciate it. I would prefer to show that the cited "possibly" is exactly 0%, so let me know if there is anything I can do to prove it, anything at all, and I will gladly do it. Thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, this was the conclusion I was communicating from the checkuser team. You would have to contact them if you wanted a clearer statement. But you're OK. The SPI is closed and will be archived later today. The only way you would be blocked as a sock of Kalki at this point is if you straight-up admitted to being the same person. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I could care less whether I am banned or not, though I think it is very obvious that I never did any of the things that some people quite shamelessly accused me of doing. The issue for me is quite a different one. There are two users, namely Cirt and Beyond My Ken, who apparently have no problems in accusing others of sockpuppery, which is a very serious charge, even without presenting any evidence for it that would stand the scrutiny of a 9 year-old kid. I am especially bothered by the former user, who is an admin here and should know better, but I fear he is too blinded by intolerance towards Kalki to see things clearly. I hope he will still apologize to me, I don't know. Anyway, what I do know is that if it was me making such groundless accusations against an admin (say, against you), based on such bad evidence, I would rightly be under the fire of many other admins, because your reputation was on the line, and perhaps even get booted for making personal attacks. But, apparently, when it's the other way around, admins accusing users, then it's OK for admins to make such malicious accusations?? They (he) certainty got away with it without even getting a warning in my case, and they (he) made their baseless accusations in the Administrators' noticeboard, a place full of admins who unfortunately didn't bother stepping in. Although I believe most, if not all, admins are very nice, smart and kind people, this is still very shocking to me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

It wasn't just Cirt and Beyond My Ken. I'll also admit to thinking you were a sockpuppet, as did numerous checkusers (before the actual checks were run). I'll also admit that I was completely wrong. But it was something about how you write that made all of us, editors with decades of experience between us, think you Kalki. Again, I'll admit we were wrong, because I don't want you to think that it was just two people attacking you for no reason. I had never heard of Kalki before I was asked if I thought you were the same person. I won't speak for how others handled the situation, but as far as I'm aware we all thought the suspicions were justified. If they were not, the checkuser team would have kicked the case back immediately with an admonishment. So it sucks, but sometimes two random people really do just seem alike, and I'm sorry we dragged you through this. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's OK, really. I'm still a bit surprised, but I thank you for taking the time to clarify the issue, and for your kind and honest replies. Best wishes from me, and thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of attack page

You were incorrect in restoring Civilization Jihad, even in user space; attack pages (it was deleted under G10) may not exist in any namespace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It was restored (but left blanked) so the author could continue to work on it. If another admin wants to delete it again, I won't object. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like either an admin or the user restored all of the material that was previously there, so I'm going to mark it for speedy again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, let me give you a little more background on this. GroundRisk and I had a long conversation about the article on IRC. We went over the problems with the article, especially the issue of sourcing. I got him to agree when I userfied the article that he would only restore from the history the content that was appropriately backed by reliable sources, which was actually a tiny minority of it. I specifically told him not to just unblank the entire thing. I thought this would be fine, but apparently my message did not get through. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he's a single-purpose account devoted to pushing this theory, but maaaaaybe when he realizes that's not what WP is for, he will become a productive user? Thanks for trying to deal with it, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(Ah yeah, so I ended up MfDing it after the speedy tag was removed. It looks like he's blanked it for now, but I don't exactly expect it'll stay that way.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Questionable Blocking

You blocked all of Intel from editing Wikipedia... I don't think there's any case of Intel abusing Wikipedia and all of the edits done with the public IP are easily traceable to individual DHCP IP's. Maybe you should reconsider?

134.134.137.71 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Care to point out where I did this? Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel Hershberg Litigation

Hi Someguy. I am referring you to recent judgement issued by the District Court in Jerusalem after 2 years of litigation. The Court rejected Israel Hershberg's denial of paintings painted by him in the early 1980's signed "Hartzvi" (hebrew for Hersbherg). These are 3 paintings purchased by a Baltimore based architect back then. The judgement triggered a buzz in israeli media. See links: http://www.haaretz.co.il/1.1969092; http://www.court.gov.il/BookReader/getbook.asp?path=%5C%5CIDCNFSV01%5Cidc_repository3%5C850%5C476%5C79046a59923d40c4bc52f7ccd035206a&OlvDataProto=file&Language=Hebrew&Hebrew=1&ReaderStyle=ILCourts&h=A2CE933E194CD950A8D7CE78D0D9821D&OnePageMode=1.

See also http://israelhershbergsearlyartwork.blogspot.co.il/ that posts the agreement from 1982 in which Hershberg admits to usage of the "Hartzvi" signature (section 2 of the first page). thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.10.242 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to propose an addition, complete with formatted citations, in an {{Edit semi-protected}} request on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just did. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.10.242 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Question Regarding Neumont University Edits

Hello Someguy 1221 thank you for your attention to the Neumont University Wikipedia pages. The egregious actions of CollegeTimes in the months before and after Neumont suit are relevant to the story of Neumont University vs. CollegeTimes. The complaint filed by Neumont (and subsequent legal documents) characterize the issue as Cyberstalking, extortion, harassment, and onoing libel - it is not a complaint regarding a few negative reviews.

I am glad that you see how hideous Mr. Nickles' use of that article was in his ongoing cyberstalking against the University, and I will not add that link again. I wasn't certain of a better way to show the true nature of the CollegeTimes cyberstalking of the University and his poor judgement and escalating harassment in the months following the filing of the legal concern. Mr. Nickles has been so prolific in creating content to slander the University (and anyone associated with University administration or this legal matter) that mentioning his ongoing harassment is relevant to the story of what people will read about Neumont. Your edits to the Neumont page are now not a correct or accurate characterization of the legal issue, or Mr. Nickles' pathological and erratic behavior. How do you propose we correct the record to make the Wikipedia page reflect the true facts? Berstabit (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Berstabit (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, this will be the third place I've said this now: Find secondary sources to discuss his behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't certain where you would choose to reply. Noted on the link issue, I will link to the legal statements which characterize Nickles behavior. But the original legal issue is also mischaracterized by labeling the matter as Neumont objecting to negative reviews, their complaint claims that Nickles extorted them and generated the content himself. I updated the article to be accurate to the factual record but the update was deleted in removing the link to Mr. Nickles blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berstabit (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Berstabit and NU DOE and User:Nemont, thank you to ElKevbo for finally deleting the Controversy section from the page, our prestigious university doesn't deserve these attacks on our reputation. President Obama and Steve Forbes have both declared Neumont is the best computer science program in the United States. We are not a sham. Lymani (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jajadelera, back at it

Only five hours after it was called stale, at least one of the IP's is already back at it again. I don't know what can be done or whom to ask, but this vandal and everyone's inability to even slow him down, is seriously taking away the joy of WP:ing for me. Please have a look here. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

GNU C-Graph

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding GNU C-Graph. The thread is Complaint Against Summary Deletion of "GNU C-Graph".The discussion is about the topic GNU C-Graph. Thank you. -Visionat (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson

I've just been told he's back. Robin Whood (talk · contribs). Obvious sock. I expected him back, he may have others doing some of his other favorite topics. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Essaios (talk · contribs) looks possible. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance of junk AFC articles by other editors

I just read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association which is a comment you left on another user's talk page about acceptance of a dubious AFC.

This editor came to my attention because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Sanicola - the subject of the article came onto #wikipedia-en-help, confessed they'd written the whole thing themselves, we gave them the usual spiel about COI, proper references, notability not being infectious. At the end, up pops Coolboygcp, "sure, I'll approve it". Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coolboygcp shows a slew of dubious acceptances.

I'm writing here because I'm not very experienced, and I'm not sure how best to tackle this. I asked them about it in the same IRC channel today, making no progress. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

These sorts of issues have been brought up before at WT:AFC. There is no formal process in place to tackle such cases, as they are fortunately rare. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote about the issue there. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin article

I could not help noting your earlier attempt to make edits to the Eugene Plotkin article and being bullied by one of the other editors on that article. I am now experiencing the same thing. If you could take a look at my comments on the talk page of that article and the BLP Notice Board, and weigh in with your thoughts, that would be great. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's less being bullied by another editor, than it is being stuck with nominally reliable but crappy sources. I'm quite firmly convinced that all the so-called-reliable sources in the Plotkin article did nothing more than regurgitate the SEC's opinions under the guise of independent reporting (and at least one of them was just making shit up). But these sources are published in outlets that truly are reliable in general. It's the standard on Wikipedia to stick to what the sources say, and sometimes that leads to shitty articles. The best bet is to argue for deletion or rewriting based on WP:BLP1E. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked???

Why am I blocked? See this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAmal89 You blocked me, I don't get it. Could you explain? - amal89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.114.50 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your account is blocked because you have been abusing multiple accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that using/ making another account is no big deal. I can change my ip and so can create any number of accounts. So, blocking me or not blocking won't make any difference. Why block me then? In fact, I can be anyone. 117.192.108.74 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can also be this Someguy221 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Were you trying to achieve some sort of mental satisfaction by blocking me? You can block this new account,.I just need to switch over to another ip and not tell you who I am. You wouldn't ever know me. Why block then? It's a bit immature don't you think, this blocking and unblocking. Basking in the powers of an admin, does it make you happy? Ineffective, don't you think with all the power to block and yet you could do nothing. Someguy221 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heiro 20:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymani (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

891 mm

Hi

In addition to this check done by a CU I would like to add that after a check on svwp the following accounts (and one IP) are confirmed as the same as being used by the same person. And the sockmaster is E.G. (talk · contribs · block log) and not 891 mm (talk · contribs · block log) so IMHO the account 891 mm should be blocked permanently as well. Anyway, the accounts (and the IP) are:

• Horgg (talk · contribs · block log)
• Flaggalf (talk · contribs · block log)
• Tant Tåg (talk · contribs · block log)
• Henrik myser (talk · contribs · block log)
• 83.251.154.202 (talk · contribs · block log)

I came to you since you were the admin that blocked the other sockpuppets (this time around - E.G. has been using multiple accounts under several years on both svwp and enwp to change consensus) GameOn (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but I don't really have time to do an investigation right now I'd recommend reopening the SPI case. There is a box for doing so at WP:SPI. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SPI clerking

Hi! I've moved you to temporarily inactive on the clerks list since you haven't acted on a case in over a month. Feel free to move yourself back to active when you return. Hope all is well! --Rschen7754 08:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Curious

Forgive my intrusion on your talk page, but a recent perusal of AN/I brought your name to my attention. I have been "discussing" the article Talk:Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823) with an editor by the name of Someguy1122[11]. This editor appears to not understand, or care about, what constitutes original research. I was curious if you had run across this individual and if this individual is using a form of name quite similar to yours for some other purpose? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever run into SomeGuy1122 before. No clue who he is or why he chose the name. At the time he registered the account, I was well into a year-long Wikibreak, so I can't imagine he took the name for some sort of retaliation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Just thought it was weird. Sorry to have bothered you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It was no bother :) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Something you might want to look at

Back in January, you warned User:Flagrantedelicto about outing another editor. I don't know what the deal was, but after an incident I filed an ANI thread for another reason. It was revealed earlier today that, during the incident, he did what another user feels is an outing attempt. You might want to take a look at this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I think at the depth of things, Flagrant means well, but he still hasn't figured out how to not take editing disputes personally. I don't think there is anything I can add to the ANI thread, but thank you for letting me know about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The info has been added, but I unfortunately must inform you that as of a few minutes ago he is trying to out the same user again in the middle of ANI. His behavior is really brazen; could you advise on what to do about this? The guy is absolutely out of control. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

For what good it might do: [12]. I truly wish such things were not necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I wish the situation hadn't progressed like this. And I am sorry that I had to leave you more than one comment here - I can imagine, with as much work as you have on your plate, that it isn't a nice thing to see when logging in. I just hope this can be solved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You never have to worry about bothering me. If I were truly too busy to respond, I simply wouldn't :) Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In that unfortunate case, it might be apt to let you know that the user left a gift for you on their talk page. This person just never quits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed. It's the same thing he did almost half a year ago. It's best to just say nothing and let editors walk away with their pride. As long as he gets the message, no one should care that he never admitted he was wrong. If he doesn't get the message, he'll be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that our friend has been indeffed, would I be paranoid to think there's a connection with this guy who wants to put a pic of a giant cheesburger on my user page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Any editor whose first action is to say something stupid on a user talk page is a returning vandal/troll. It's a fact drawn from experience. Typically I block even if I have no clue who is actually returning. But he hasn't done anything since then, so nothing much to do now. Let me know if any more stupidity finds its to your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Two definite positives as of now - Special:Contributions/75.150.223.177 who is posting obnoxious messages on the relevant talk pages complaining about flagrantdelicto's indef, and Special:Contributions/210.195.9.142 edit warring on one of the same articles and a talk page comment with the same style of writing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the first IP. Can you be a little more specific as to why 210 is clearly the same person? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyond writing style, no, which makes me think I was wrong. Some of the material did seem odd given the specific flagrantdelicto seemed to have pushed. I'll have to retract that about the second one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Now we got a guy who "I just discovered this conversation was going on" 31 minutes after creating his account. Right in the thick of the discussion where Zulfindar jumped in, no less. Am I just being paranoid? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to look through it at the moment, but I don't think you are being paranoid. If you can show with diffs that they are pressing the same or similar arguments, or have otherwise similar behaviors, feel free to reopen the SPI. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantedelicto, in case you're interested in weighing in. You have some experience with the user's behavior, so I think it's fair to alert you to it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Korean name-removing IP range

Just wanted to let you know that 203.215.117.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a similar editing pattern and may be in the same range with the other 203s that you blocked. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme

Rather than open a new investigation I just reopened the current one and added more detail. Please let me know if you'd like more examples for the connection. nableezy - 01:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner sockpuppetry

Hi, are you going to extend Kauffner's block per the SPI? It seems warranted as the sock was used for continued disruption at the article. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I really thought that I had - guess I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for attending to the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rschen7754 17:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

An Award

A Barnstar!

Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize Awarded to Someguy1221 for your extraordinary efforts to protect Wikipedia during the Morning 277 Sockpuppet investigation. The Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize goes to sysops who tirelessly block returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC) (First awarded by Durova in July 2007)

Reconsider

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You give a lengthy screed about why Adjwilley is unfit to edit Wikipedia, let alone administrate, yet you fail to provide any diffs to substantiate your concerns, or even give clear references so that other voters may track down the issues and judge for themselves. As long as this remains the case, I'm not even going to try to understand your concerns. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: English and Croatian sockpuppetry (incidentally related to Slavić's post above)

I'll ask around, I don't see an automatic prescribed way to get this fixed, but I'm sure it'll be dealt with soon enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

I describe the evidence here for a rather large sock case. I know large cases can be time consuming, but I think this one is important and I believe that the way that I have set this one out is fairly straight forward. What I would like is your advice on whether to proceed. Thanks in advance. I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I only took a cursory look, but I can't tell if this is one puppeteer or many people working together. Definitely worth moving forward on. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is one puppeteer/leader and I think at least some people working together off-wiki, since there is no communication among them on any talk pages. I'll move forward and thanks for you advice! I am One of Many (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277

Added the most recent ones with evidence and analysis above your endorsement of the one you endorsed. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mention

I got a mention from you, saying that I was a sock of sorts. I am not nor am I associated with Morning277 or any other users on that page[13].

Mirahlucas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277#15_July_2013_.282.29

Thank you for helping with this. You closed it with the remark "other accounts are blocked" but didn't mention Oforokeke (talk · contribs), whose account hasn't been blocked. My comment there, dated 21:16, 15 July has evidence. —rybec 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I failed to note that I was awaiting CU on him as well. But going back and looking at him, I've decided he's obvious enough to block. Still waiting for CU on him anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DOB

Pretty sure we can say this dispute is resolved. I believe Jimbo made it very clear how he feels about the situation.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Socks

Hi! I saw your block of User:=HT=Chief. What about User:HTChief, which is the same person. HTH.  —SMALLJIM  11:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone else took care of him. I'll watchlist those target articles in case he comes back. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

S/he asked for a change of username at my suggestion. —rybec 22:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hoped to catch you during your "blocking spree" yesterday, but it seems I was a few minutes too late :(  —SMALLJIM  20:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Miscneptions 2 sock

Why did you accuse me of being a sock? I don't even no misconcptions2. The sock investigation has been on for long time, when do you guys plan on closing it.--Lonelydream (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

8 editors register accounts within a few days of eachother and all vote in the same AFD. That is extremely suspicious. The SPI will be closed when a CU takes action on it. I am not a checkuser, so I cannot tell you when that will be. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So when will this sock investigation take place so that I can be proved innocent--Lonelydream (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

a13ean (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

COI vetting

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at WP:COIN

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you so very much for your thoughtful help at WP:COIN, about the GMO question. You truly stepped up! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Someguy. I notice you blocked 41.103.100.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Meanwhile, indeed before your block, 41.103.84.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) went medieval on the last two people who warned 41.103.100.94, Thomas.W and Fnlayson. These IPs are both supposedly static, but apparently there's no problem moving between them. I've asked NuclearWarfare about rangeblocking. [14] Unless you'd like to do it? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

Misconceptions2

I think an immediate block is needed for Misconceptions2 because of this [15]. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

false allegations which have already been addressed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to submit all evidences to any investigations to prove my statements. Marie013 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Someguy1221. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Pheed & User:Tedteeth01

Hi Someguy1221! I noticed you deleted Pheed and blocked User:Tedteeth01 - I'd looked earlier, and there didn't seem to be enough evidence to show that Tedteeth01 was a Morning277 meatpuppet, as opposed to a general paid editor. Was there something I missed? - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but there was so much evidence! I'd rather go over this via email or IRC, so as not to publicize the blueprint I use for spotting his meatpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll let it be then. But I noticed that a number of the reports made at the SPI were based on fairly iffy evidence, or were simply mistaken. While I'd like to see Morning277 stopped, I'm worried that the criteria we've been using doesn't always distinguish between a generic paid editor and a Morning277 account, given that we have to rely only on behavioural evidence. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've declined to block plenty of editors reported there. But you can trust that I am going through each suspected meat with a fine toothed comb before I hit the block button. I don't do it unless I'm sure based on my own investigation. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

maximalism

if you are the person who keeps taking the articles about shokof and his maximalism, would you Please, let us know how else should a note be added to the subject where you and your associates for any and all reasons try your best to prevent public to know who originated the terminology, the long manifest written about it, and over 600 major paintings in over 20 worls ranked art exhibitions by daryush shokof who started this whole philosophy and vision in 1990? is it possible for you and your associates to Please, explain why and how you are not able to track his works. paintings and arts under maximalism?! i have been personally in one of the first exhibitions with shokof under maximalism and can simply not understand how can people ignore facts in these days and times where much can be viwed on the net, only when one wants truly to see and verfiy the truth behind such most sensitive and important social , artistic and creative issues?! friedjohnsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.234.194 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add content to the Maximalism article, you have to cite reliable sources. In this case, that would be professional scholars of art history and literature. Not a blog or your personal recollections. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

shokof maximalism

Hi Someguy1221 it seems i am not the only person trying to correct notes on the origin of maximalism.this thoughts and art movement has been founded by daryush shokof and is well established in some exhibitions worldwide with wide variety of artists participating in the exhibitions under maximalists. it seems that we "who care about the philosophical and content of maximalism from its found shokof" do not get the edit right? somehow whatever the article used for the correction is always being taken out?! more strange is that you use the same articles to begin the explanation of maximalism and for whatever reason "leave" shokof completley out of the article?! can you explain this?! we have seen his works, read his manifest about maximalism and the famouse one liner Balancing the chaos=balance=life=maximalism anyone else ever said and or define maximalism in such compact words before 1990? shokof,s first exhibition seems to have been in 1990 and whereas all other names now associated with the movemet are way after the date 1990?! can any of you in the wikipedia explain what is happening?! thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.234.194 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Read my reply to your last message. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. It doesn't matter what you've seen with your own eyes. You can only add to Wikipedia what you can back with references to reliable sources. That means art historians, or other scholars. Find where they have written about Shokof, and cite them. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Lukabri

Lukabri (talk · contribs) left a request for unblocking. It wasn't active until just now, when I fixed the markup. I've left a comment on Lukabri's talk page. —rybec 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lukabri has made another request. —rybec 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Could you look at this case? [16] You have experience with this account. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Busy weekend - didn't have time today. What I can tell you is that all of those IPs look like proxies. I'll look into behavior tomorrow. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Socks of English Patriot Man

1. Since the IP addresses are open proxies, they deserved to be blocked even if they weren't being used by sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

2. In addition, English Patriot Man is in England, but he isn't English. At least, he doesn't write Standard British English. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I've already blocked the lot of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Too many indef blocked IPs

Hi, sorry I got screen detached today. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And a new one

New English Patriot Man SP. [17] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Unfortunately, EPM is switching between proxies and highly dynamic mobile ranges. So we are limited to either playing whack-a-mole or protecting his favorite pages. If you think it's appropriate, you can make protection requests at WP:RFPP, or you can make them right here (but just for EPM issues). If it meets the standards of the protection policies, I'll lock the pages so he can't edit the articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Andrew³²⁷ 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry sir . That was not at all intentional . I was trying to add my talk and removed your by mistake . It will not be repeated . Sorry for the discomfort sir. 1.38.20.19 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1.38.20.19 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Someguy1221. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Ramat_Gan_address

Hi, would you like to comment there? —rybec 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

People v. Jovanovic (and more)

I'll contact you later about other pages that you protect. In the meantime, the case article is infrequently edited recently. Since BLP violation had occurred in the past, perhaps lower protection to "pending changes" instead of "unprotection"? --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed protection from that page since it is no longer needed. It was originally added because certain people insisted on adding the name of the alleged rape victim before mainstream news media had picked it up. That has since changed. Had it not changed, I actually would have left it indefinitely semi'd, rather than change to pending changes. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So PC unnecessary then? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I think. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

about an obvious sock. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Lukabri

I was looking to resolve the unblock request here and am quite perplexed after reading through the talk page. What are your thoughts on the matter? The user seems very eager to please (which I view as suspicious in this case). John Reaves 01:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to believe Lukabri when he says he will avoid Morning277/Wiki-PR in the future, but I suspect that he intends to continue paid advocacy. That is why I have chosen not to unblock Lukabri, but recognizing my own negative opinion of paid advocacy (which is not inherently a violation of any policy), I chose to leave the decision to another administrator. I feel I may be too biased on this block to give a fair assessment of an unblock request. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since (recently) unblocked by Ronhjones. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

is the blocking of caching sites new?

Hello Someguy, over here -- Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives#92.39.193.81 -- you said that archive.is gets rejected as a valid cite, regardless of what domain it is caching? That seems pretty uber strict, is there any evidence that folks have been tampering with the contents, or otherwise uploading whatever-some-blogger-said? Does the same policy apply to archive.org, as well? Can you fill me in on which specific abusefilter/editfilter is doing this, please.

And I'll belatedly ask, how are you with quick questions? Are you allergic to WP:WALLOFTEXT?      :-)     Because there was also somebody named Jack on the same board, who I could pester with my questions. But if you have time, for a chat about the innards of filters, I'd appreciate it. If busy, please just say so. Either way, thanks for improving wikipedia -- you clearly have done-a-ton. You can reply here if you like, or over at my talkpage if you would like a quicker turnaround-time. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct about how the filter against archive.is works. The reason we block this is that the owner of archive.is appears to be using a botnet to spam his website all over Wikipedia. We don't know why he's doing it, but it makes is worry about the integrity of the site when the owner acts like that. Last I checked, we have not yet gotten consensus on what to do with the existing links to archive.is, but new links are now disallowed. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: This discussion has been closed with a consensus to remove all links to archive.is from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow

Not the place for either content or behavioral disputes. Anyone who wants to continue this is free to open an WP:ANI thread or an WP:RFCU

Hello - you recently blocked User:AsadR indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is the 9th sock account in the last couple months I've filed a report on, all of which seem to be single-purpose accounts dedicated to patrolling Ronan Farrow and deleting unflattering information; most likely all the same person at a reputation management firm. These socks also, in a very aggressive manner, assail reputable Wikipedians and call for them to be blocked for "disruptive editing" - creating the appearance of a large number of independent editors raising issue against a lone editor in a sparsely trafficked account. As a recent target of this lobbying - and an intense episode of name calling - by the publicist in question, I've decided not to actively participate in WP any longer, however, I did check in today and noticed that the complaint against AsadR was validated. In light of that, I wanted to inquire as your amenability to rolling back Ronan Farrow to this edit version which was the last version prior to extremely substantial edits made by the "AsadR" identity of the publicist. Thanks for your consideration. BlueSalix (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC) As an independent, longtime Wikipedia editor with a constructive reputation, unaffiliated with the socks in any way, I need to point out that "AsadR" aside, BlueSalix, as the Ronan Farrow talk page and deleted posts on his own talk page make clear, is not a disinterested editor himself. Many of his edits to Ronan Farrow — which he wants you to roll back to as an end-run to avoid other editors —have been biased, one-sided attacking edits that clearly appear to be based on his own personal disagreements with the article subject's politics. As well, BlueSalix's asking an admin to recreate BlueSalix's own personal preference for the article, sidestepping discussion and an RfC that was going against him, is highly inappropriate, I feel. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Hi guys. Since there is nothing technically preventing you from changing the page, Blue, I'd rather not get involved. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Hello Someguy1221. I am making the conscious choice to avoid engaging with the editor who just chose to inject himself due to a pattern of extremely upsetting, bizarre, and unusual behavior he has engaged in toward me over a minor edit disagreement (the strangeness of this behavior has been commented on by User:NinjaRobotPirate, and User:Fordx12). Namely, calling me a liar (3 times), a child (2 times), single-purpose account (4 times), an extremist, disingenous (2 times), sneaky, a weasel (2 times), and disruptive (5 times) - all linked above. This is the reason I requested the rollback. In addition to unusual name-calling, he has been actively telling others (like he did here, above) that I have been called disruptive by "many editors" when, in fact, it has just been 1 editor (him) and the 9 banned sockpuppets (who have been supporting his edit decisions) who are spreading his allegation. Obviously, this is extremely disruptive, can only serve a purpose to deceive other editors, and I have repeatedly requested he stop making these untrue claims. Thank you, kindly, for considering the exceptional circumstances that, I believe, warrants an administrative rollback and the reasons that make individual editing impossible for me to engage in with respect to this article (namely, every effort I've made to engage in GF editing has prompted the above cited extremely aggressive behavior by the only other active (non-sock?) editor in question and it is clear now I am unable to edit this entry without being subject to an extreme level of aggression by this editor that I do not believe I deserve to be on the receiving end of). Beneath all this manufactured drama, I hope you understand the core, and very serious, concern I've been trying to raise attention toward: this minor entry has been absolutely, and is continuing to be, slammed by socks and there are only two active editors participating in it, one of whom (me) has essentially been "chased off" by the other editor - who has editorially aligned himself with said socks - using a level of name-calling and campaigning I have never, ever, ever before seen on WP. What I've linked above is, quite simply, extremely aberrant behavior that should raise some red flags. In light of some of the recent news vis a vis rep management firms and WP I really am hoping that, if an admin rollback is not possible, this serious situation can still be given some kind of administrative attention. I'll be the first to admit I'm in way over my head on this one. (I don't know if this is appropriate to note here or not, however, I've even been directly contacted through email by a reporter who had been independently looking into the question of this entry from a completely separate source and I'm happy to share with you - via email - some of what I was told offline if you don't feel the above behavior pattern stands on its own [though I think you'll find it does].) BlueSalix (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) As I have just noted at Talk:Ronan Farrow, I have found, without even looking hard, that User:Yworo and User:Damotclese, who also both opposed BlueSalix's edits, are not among any sockpuppets. Blue Salix continues to have remarkable trouble with simply telling the truth. And if User:NinjaRobotPirate or User:Fordx12 have called anything I have said or done "strange behavior," I'd like to see BlueSalix offer links to that. I would also note that asking for a rollback to his preferred version over the consensus of an RfC is highly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

civil manner

Be that as it may -- and I fully support civil conflict resolution, I have come to the point where I no longer believe in wikipedia as a source for factual information the way it used to be entrenched in hard cover encyclopedias. You might say that they were written by the Brits and they are not objective. It is however the case that those editorial -- teams -- at least came to a concensus on describing facts.

What I have witnessed over the last few months watching and participating in the wikiepedia world is that there are many users who are not interested in describing the world in facts but rather painting a world as they see it. If they have to, they delete, alter or block.

And that to me Sir is politics -- not credible editing just normative world creation based on individual -- at many times misguided -- political beliefs. The Soviet Union editors also edited history books on a monthly basis in accordance to their leadership wishes.

I no longer believe wikipedia is a world for seeking knowledge in truth. It has become a political war for world creation. That's just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekd s (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have been watching for months, you may have also noticed that decisions to block editors or delete content are not only transparent, but also subject to discussion and consensus-building. You are free not only to observe the decisions as they take place, but also to challenge those decisions to the blocker/delete directly and in a public forum to the community at large. It will always be the case that some content needs to be deleted, and some editors need to be blocked. Editors have always and will always have the opportunity to make their voices heard, and the majority of the community will always have the power to overturn virtually any decision. You need only choose to participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)This comment has also been copied to your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sock

You blocked User:Shuttlecockcock. User talk:ShuttlecockMasterofDisaster is a sock or sockmaster that is a WP:VOA. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing him out. Now if these blocks don't keep him away, let me know, and I'll do something more. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Busy morning

Do me a favor and close that AfD over at Grey DeLisle‎ I withdrew it, as I didn't realize there was a notability guide for voice actors. The article still needs work though.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Another one

Hey. You just blocked User:Gofuckyourself2200. The user seems to be also editing as an IP. Thanks. Widr (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IP should be covered by the autoblock, but I put a block on him anyway just in case. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Someguy1221:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI clerking; unfamiliar with process

Hi, I have a suspicion about a sockpuppet but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know how to "prove it" save for some odd similarities in rare articles being edited by the same account. Could you give me a hand on how to proceed? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ahno. This is a good concern to have, since the line between misguided accusations and personal attacks is rather fuzzy. You can always feel free to privately email me with your concerns and with what evidence you do have, and I will let you know if it is something that can be pursued through an SPI. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I sent you a private email. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if this is about who I think you're talking about, then I can tell you they are not sockpuppets. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about http://www.jimschwartz.com

Hi Someguy1221, User:Jpschwartz is a good example of an account I see fairly often where a business is named after the person and the user page appears to be there to promote the business rather than have anything to do with the person. What should I do in the future? Should I leave them a warning that they need to remove the promotional stuff from their user pages or they could be construed as a promotional account and may be blocked? Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a literal interpretation of policy lets me block them, but obviously if my name is also the name of my company, what else am I supposed to call myself? What you described is a good approach. If the userpage is promotional enough it can just be tagged for speedy deletion regardless of the username, of course, and the user then blocked if he keeps recreating it. Since this is just the name of a company and a link, not so. Oftentimes that is simply the start of a larger draft, and I'd rather not bite the newbie even if there's only a 1% chance he'll turn out to be a productive user. MfD is also an approach you can take. If the page and account are clearly abandoned (I usually assume such if the account is >2 weeks old and creating the userpage is the only thing it ever did) I typically just delete under G11 or G6 or some other criterion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may find one or more administrators who disagree with me on any or all of this. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a very reasonable approach. I used to just tag such accounts for speedy delete and admins would delete 100% and indef block 99%, but I began to question this a bit, so I've been sending questionable cases to UAA for more careful consideration. I think what I will do in the future is leave a note on talk pages of accounts like this telling them that their account comes across as promotional and how they should change it. If they don't respond or continue to edit, that would bolster the view that they are just using the account promotionally. Thanks for you response. I am One of Many (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out the email issue

thanks for your response on the 'false positives' page. much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf the wolf (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey admin

I'm edit-conflicting with you all over the place: you're faster on the draw than I am. As for Daddy daddy daddy, I've semi-protected Scott Bacon; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Go feck r selves Wik. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:AniceMathew

Do you have a problem with me bumping it up to indefinite. I think a week is just way too lenient. This guy should've been indef'd when he threatened physical violence last time he was blocked.--v/r - TP 14:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope - I have no objections. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

six times in less than a day

See the AN/I discussion -- where MilesMoney deliberately wikilinked my name to get me the sixth notification in less than a day from him ... he proudly states As for the red notification box, triggering that is no more annoying than saying User:Collect, and there's no policy against that, either. I suspect there is actually a policy against deliberate and continuing harassment after being told to stop, [18] is his sixth harassing "create a notification" act in less than a single day -- and I am, as you put it, getting pissed at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like you're exaggerating your distress in an attempt to persuade an admin to punish me. This wouldn't be the first time. MilesMoney (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- you gonna claim that this page was on your watchlist -- or are you simply and overtly stalking my every edit now? This makes seven strikes as far as I am concerned. Cheers -- the fact that you did not stop at three when I said you would end up at a noticeboard, that you did not stop at four, and you did not stop at five, and now you do not stop at six, is past pissed-off time. Collect (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You going to claim that this ex parte conversation has any intent other than stirring up trouble for me? First you try BD, now you try this? If anyone's harassing, it's you. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Many thanks for your technical expertise, and consistent contributions to the Village Pump! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

IP on a mission

Thanks for taking action regarding the IP who objected to their comments being removed, see the archived AN discussion.

They have returned and I'm wondering what should happen next. Their comments at the moment are not what would normally be removed as an attack, but they are obviously just warming up and I don't think they should continue. The IP insists on naming a good editor at every opportunity, with unsubstantiated claims that attack the integrity of the editor.

At the moment, the IP has undone my removal of their comment at Talk:Marian Dawkins (diff) and has done a trivial edit to another article, with an edit summary again attacking the editor (diff). It's a bit unusual, but maybe semiprotect the articles and talk pages for two weeks (Animal welfare and Marian Dawkins and Pain in animals)? Or, pursue WP:RBI? Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it still going on? Could go with more rangeblocks, or semi, or maybe a filter. I'll take another look tomorrow - been a long day. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That looks a bit too dynamic for WP:RBI, and it's an awfully big range. I've semi'd the articles and talkpages that John mentions. Please take a look, Someguy, and change it any way you like. Of course it's unfortunate that other, well-behaved, IPs are now shut out from the talkpages, so I'm unsure about the length of the protection. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

P. S. I see Twinkle didn't work right, I probably did it wrong: the logs say "persistent vandalism" although I selected "BLP vios" (as the padlock templates correctly say). Well, no big deal. Sounds a little odd for talkpages. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks all. I had expected more pushback from the IP given earlier events, but I have not noticed that. I'll keep an eye on it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Change in the Wikipedia page about me

Dear Someguy,

Awhile ago you places a lockdown on this page about me because a party was editing in text that violoted my Artists Moral Rights. I see that now this has been reversed and that the offending text has not only been replaced but further added to. I kindly request that the page be reverted to the locked state it was in. I would appreciate your assistance and cooperation in this matter as it distorts, damage and violates the biography of a living person as we then discussed. Many thanks in advance. Israel Hershberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.12.28 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have placed the page on indefinite "pending changes". Anyone will still be allowed to submit alterations to the page, but those changes will not be visible to readers unless and until approved by a more experienced editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

recall

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

English Patriot Man

Could you took look at this as you are experienced in this issue? [19] Again-same sources, phrases, sentences and ideology.Active on the same articles as before. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Someguy1221! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Williamsburgland is back

You indeffed user:Williamsburgland on Feb 21, 2014 for sockpuppetry (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Williamsburgland/Archive ). He's back as user:Williamsburghand. He admits to being a sock on his userpage but claims to have abandoned his trolling. He's making similar edits as before and is already involved in edit wars. As a blocked user he's not eligible for a clean start (and he's connected himself to his old account so it isn't a clean start anyways), so it's just block evasion. Shouldn't he apply to get his block on user:Williamsburgland lifted if he wants to contribute again? Meters (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My sockpuppetry ban

Hi! I noticed you haven't looked at my appeal yet. Can I just use this screen name? Also, can you please add this account to my list of socks? I need it for my records. --Williamsshirtpants (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I declined the other account's unblock request and added to your report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock

I am writing to you for two reasons. 1. You list yourself as willing to perform rangeblocks and 2. your involvement, a little over a year ago, in a sockpuppet investigation into 089baby (talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/089baby/Archive), as I feel a rangeblock is necessary for containing his sockpuppetry. Recently he has taken to IP hopping, using registered accounts only for creating articles. All the IP's he's used are in the 36.27.0.0/16 range, with the third number ranging from 192 to 203.

As evidence, I point to the timeline of account usage. From 6 November to 4 January, 9 different accounts of his blocked were blocked in as many weeks, and then he stopped all of a sudden. Assuming I haven't missed any, the next sock wasn't registered until a month later. From 10 January onward, there was dramatic increase in edits to articles frequently edited by 089baby from IP's in the range in question, there having been only around 20 edits to article on Cambodian football (his subject of interest) in all of 2013. Add to that the fact that the only edits made by the two most recent socks Kakalara (talk · contribs) and Nevercare12345 (talk · contribs) were to create the same five articles, with all other edits to these article, except some routine maintenance, coming from IP's in the range.

I have already posted on the Administrators' noticeboard about this, but the post has gone unanswered for two days. Additionally, I have also contacted @Reaper Eternal: and @NativeForeigner: who both also have some involvement in this case. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a /20, actually. I'll take a look. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 089baby has been the only user on that range for a while, so I've blocked it for a month. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Niemti and Jessica Nigri

Hi. [[User talk:|Niemti]] and I are once again involved in a conflict on the Jessica Nigri article. I tried talking to him on his talk page, but he again violates WP:CIV, WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR and now WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, and refuses to respond to my requests for clarification in a straightforward, civil manner. I have started a discussion at ANI. Since you're familiar with past problems involving him, can you offer your assistance? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

==

Hello, Someguy1221. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

==

Need an oversight committee member to delete an edit that includes my personal email addy. Atsme ☯ talk 18:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

089baby rangeblock

Hello Someguy,

Thanks again for the rangeblock of IP's used by 089baby. It came out of effect today and Jamesson123 (talk · contribs) was registered. His edits so far are innocuous enough, but the subject's he's edited and the timing do make it somewhat suspect. Is there any way of determining if this is the same person other than just waiting to see what he does? (Previous accounts are probably stale so CU won't work). Also, I'm about to go on holiday, so if you could spare a moment to check in on him over the next days it would be much appreciated. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

After consulting with a checkuser, it's possible. I'll keep an eye on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Gottschalk/ Godeschalk

So on Codex Sangallensis 48 you have two references to a Godeschalk, which doesnt go back to any sort of person of note back then. However there is a Gottschalk of Orbais, a monk that had generated controversy by writing on predestination that was declared heretical at the time. And according to the Gottschalk page of people with that name it could also be spelled as Godescalc. I think that Godeschalk is really refering to Gottschalk, but would like your opinion on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofgun (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)