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

Hi. When you have completed a checkuser run, can you change the Endorse tag of {{RFCU|B|No2ndletter|Endorse}} to Checked please? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hadn't even noticed that. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Sorry to revert after you'd made edits, but this is a seriously problematical situation. User:Posturewriter was asked not to edit this article due to COI issues (see the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter) so it's not his call to reinstate his draft version. If you feel it's appropriate to do so, do: there's no problem if a third party makes the decision.

However, you should read the full context of that "actually a lot better and far more detailed" comment, which was made in good faith by a non-medical editor: the ensuing comments by an experienced medical editor - see WhatamIdoing's response at User talk:WhatamIdoing#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter were that the draft has major problems of style, sourcing and weight. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid. Thought it was time this is translated from French. COuld you add the progression tag. ANy help translating it would be warmly welcome. Can you duggest any French speakers who may help? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding this and this, please see [1] and [2] as it appears this individual is sill evading the block with at least these two IPs, especially revealing is this diff. The total new suspected IPs are:

• 78.34.128.135 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.34.128.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.34.134.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.34.145.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.34.168.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the IPs be blocked for block evasion? I am not an admin and can not do so myself. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's got a dynamic ISP, so an IP block wouldn't be of any help. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he's still at it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the FARC was no consensus; but how does that become keep? If there is no consensus that an article is FA (indeed, unless there is near-unanimity that it is FA) it is not promoted; there is none that KoM is FA now, or ever has been. Is there some guideline I'm missing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, just wanted you to know that Fowler and PManderson have tried to tag the article after the FAR closed. I have reverted. Please lock up the article if any revert warring starts. The concerned parties are free to start a discussion using the right channels that the FA deserves, if they feel like.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this FARC does not constitute a dispute over accuracy and neutrality, what does? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC is not meant to be a resolver of dispute, in case you did not know.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I tagged now. FARC is meant to remove the pretty little star from articles that are biased, inaccurate, or ill-written. I await Nishkid64's answer as to why it did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I see it: if there is no consensus to promote an article, then it is not promoted; similarly, if there is no consensus to delist an article, then it is not delisted. I'm not entirely familiar with this particular FAR, but I recommend that all editors begin working together towards some sort of compromise. An FA is a high-quality article, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvements. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The concensus has to come with discussions in a formal manner with neutral mediators and thorough study. Throwing tags after an unsuccessful bid to de-FA at FAR only reflects poorly on the intentions of the FAR nominator and his supporters.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with you on the point of principle. To insist on consensus to delist permits an article with a fan club to stay on FA indefinitely unless it draws a much larger boice to delist than would ever have been needed to promote. Is there some place we can discuss the general question quietly without considering whether this particular article meets those conditions? I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation but any appropriate forum would do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FAR or WT:FA or WT:FAC, or asking Raul. Obviously the inertia incumbency factor on Wikipedia means that something passing FAC is not equivalent to surviving FAR. That's the same for a whole lot of things like admins as well, generally. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raw weight is not the only determinant, eg, see the first failed FA on Preity Zinta, and also the FAR on Indo-Greek Kingdom succeeded with about 60% to delist which normally might be taken as a stalemate -> inertia. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a semi on the effected article again? Here's the latest dif -- [[3]]. Maybe a longer semi this time until he loses interest? Blocking the ips themselves seems like a pointless exercise. Best and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another favor (always favors). [[4]] I'm taking a break, could you semi-protect my user and talk pages so ips can't edit them? Not sure if that's done. Best and go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That [5], was fast; I post at AIV at 06:16, you block at 06:16. I'm very impressed; I usually have to wait 20-60 minutes. Thanks! Unschool 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, speaking of vandalism, can you please check out this IP? It's only "contributions" are to attack me in a provactive, antagonistic manner that neither myself nor anyone else is using in response to those discussions. It is obviously either someone else using the IP as a bad hand or some past editor using the IP to avoid a block. Neither scenario seems acceptable. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Terrakyte#Request_for_unblock.. I talked with another checkuser, and I am aware of the evidence, but in this case there is a really curious discrepancy between what our technological tools are saying and, well, everything else. I'd appreciate it if you would consider an unblock (we currently have two admins leaning towards that).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is interesting, but not full proof. It is possible that user is being stalked in real life. Considering his spotless previous record, and WP:AGF, I would appreciate it if you would consider unblocking him. Loosing a user who was highly helpful over his 4 months of a career as an editor due to this bizarre incident would be harmful to this project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note: even if you believe that for some bizarre reason he created those socks, a warning and 24h block should be enough for a first instance. An indef for a user who for several months was nothing but a good editor seems a bit too harsh, wouldn't you say so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you do a checkuser on the new process, in addition to adding or whatever, please change the {{RFCU|...|...|endorsed}} to {{RFCU|...|...|checked}}. Doing so lets the bot know you are done with it and forwards it to a section for admins to deal with the blocks etc. I did it for you this time as I am the bot's maker. —— nixeagle^{email me} 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for unblocking me; I will take more care regarding using a network. Is it ok if I ask if you could change the blue unblock request box, to reflect that I have been unblocked? Terrakyte (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers; really appreciate it. Do you suppose I could remove the discussion regarding this block from my talk page? I ask because, although I was acquitted of the certainty that I am a sock-puppeteer, I am afraid some users may look at my talk page, gain a feeling I did something wrong even though I was unblocked, which may handicap my time on Wikipedia regarding working with other Wikipedia editors. Terrakyte (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, so I am not worried about my above request anymore. Thanks again for your contributions regarding the block discussion. Terrakyte (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the bot now completely broken do to the page move, this is not going to work. I will remove it by hand shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nish. This looks relevant to Maga - mind sending it? Thanks for putting up with these constant requests! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. You blocked both of their variable IP back in December. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP range blocked again. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How long is the rangeblock this time? That will let me know when to start looking for their inevitable re-attampt to insert the hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One month this time. Ping me when he returns. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid. I was wondering if you could check this unblock request? Thank you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, are you online to do a quick unblock check? If so, please reply on my talk page - if this message is a couple hours old when you see it, never mind. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008 This box: view • talk • edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public terminal at the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the New York Public Library. I was not able to edit on that computer even when logged in as myself. Clearly, you went overboard here, since my very userid should have allowed me to edit, but I am also aware that you had no way of knowing (I assume) that this was a public computer. It was very annoying to not be able to correct errors I found or respond to RfDs at the library, when one is allowed on the computer for only a brief time, and I knew that I would not be home until very late yesterday. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been abusing Wikipedia under various usernames, most notably DerrikLounds. As a youngster with a number of mental illnesses, among them Autism and Bipolar disorder, and it can be difficult to tell when something is not funny and when other users are being offended. I have spoken with my father, showing him the list of usernames on the SSP investigation page. He was appalled and I have received the appropriate punishment on a personal level, with my pocket money being revoked and duties at home increased. I appeal to you to issue the necessary punishment, blocking me from using Wiki for whatever period seems appropriate. By the nature of my parents turning the router off at night, the IP sometimes changes, although I assume that this will not affect an overall block. I do not want this to be seen as an attempted block evasion. I would like my punishment to be a one-off - I hope that when you administer my punishment, other moderators will not be still attempting to punish, unaware that I have already been dealt with. As you may have noticed, a number of those usernames have been used to make constructive edits. I hope to do much more of this when I return. After speaking with my father, I have realised the error of my ways, that the other editors and subjects that I have been abusing are human too; as an autistic individual, my lack of ability to value human emotions does not entitle me to special treatment as a Wiki user. I hope to put this spell of juvenilia in the past and contribute more constructive edits when I return. I apologise for causing Wiki staff extra work, and applaud them on their ability to uphold quality. Damone Rhodes (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to grant second chances to people who sincerely wish to change their ways. If I continue to see bad-faith edits being made from your account(s), I will block them indefinitely. If the edits are beneficial, I will allow to continue editing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented briefly at User talk:Damone Rhodes - can't stop now will be in touch later. Agathoclea (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a further comment in particular asking the user to stick to one account and (if he wishes) to reveal which of the two sets of socks he belonged to. This is of interest to me as from a cursory look User:PhilOakey looked like a good hand account and wondered if that could be indicative of possible future behavior. I have also alerted an editor who edits in the field to the discussion where I am convinced that he will approach either of us if further trouble is afoot. Agathoclea (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who Agathoclea refers to, I would be happy for Damone Rhodes to continue to make good edits providing he/she is prepared to be honest and only edit from one known account. I also believe there is the potential for this user to become a worthwhile editor to the project as a number of the socks did only make good edits and some of them made good edits despite the vandalism. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this edit[6] was by a Damone Rhodes sockpuppet, but it looks like it could have been. --JD554 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire sockfarm on that IP. In the RabAllan SPI, I mentioned that there was another group of sock accounts that were  Inconclusive with Damone Rhodes. I believe this sockfarm belongs to that other group. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I missed my redlink. Any chance you could fill out that protect request for ol' Brucie too? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on this case. The alleged sock states that he has been in contact with you off-wiki with relevant information. Mayalld (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help copyedting this for FAC prep would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The education in India article, a top importance article under WP: India, has recently been rewritten by me. Though the rewrite is is no way complete I invite you to take a look and see, and if possible contribute. Sincerely, JSR 0562 18:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Thejka (talk · contribs) is Likely." I don't get this. I think this is unfair and incorrect conclusion, but one that I can't defend because this investigation is closed. How can I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? What do I need to do? I don't get this. I make one edit to the Ralph Nader page and I defend it because I made the edit, and somehow I am swept up into these Sockpuppet investigations. This is not a fair assessment. Please, is there anyway to overturn this ruling? Thejka (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have no idea why I left anon only on... --Deskana (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the block of Ziggymaster's latest sock.

I have not checked but considering the recent pattern of his - get accused/get blocked/make a new sock, I assume that there will be more socks/IPs appearing soon on the same articles - which to me is a little silly as however many accounts he uses the edits are reverted based on the content.

Is there something that could be done as a long term solution, rather than the current block/find new sock/block/repeat a million times?

I don't agree with most of the edits made by the accounts, but if the user had a single account that was forced to stick to the rules, then I see no problems - it is not a vandalism account (well apart from this charming comment directed towards myself [[7]]

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

hi you had blocked this usr for sockpuppetry. there is someone at IP address 86.162.67.153 who is again doing pakistani POV pushing especially in article on Balawaristan National Front you might want to tae a look. thanks Wikireader41 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SamjhautaExpress1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks for doing the CU and the range blocks on that...dealing with this mess had become somewhat tiresome! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for blocking 86.162.67.153 Nishkid64. now this guy seems to be at ip address 86.158.178.205 and again vandalizing Balawaristan National Front article. I will keep your omments in mind and not get provoked again. cheers ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=100&user=J.delanoy

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sleepers and IPs blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just want to let you know about an IP whos been playing with Naadapriya's page. Since I found that you were the admin who dealth with the case thought its best to alert you. Sorry if am in the wrong place. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more here Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx confirmed a block-evading sockpuppet and the underlying IP was blocked by you. Shouldn't the confirmed sockpuppet account User:Morewiser be indef-blocked as well?

Thanks. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually leave the blocking to the clerks. I've now blocked the account. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a sock of Nangparbat, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive the solution reached was the semi-protect all his/her attacks. Just felt I should inform you Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect his is a pakistani masquerading as an Indian. he made some edits to 11 July 2006 Srinagar bombings pushing pakistani POV. just wanted to let you know. thanx Wikireader41 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also made a ridiculous article Gau Jal with no references. he might be a sockpuppet of one of yor old friends Wikireader41 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were going to comment about a week ago, any updates? —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told via e-mail that additional evidence would be provided. I'll follow up with Theserialcomma and see what's up. If there's nothing else, I'll re-examine the evidence and Nukes4Tot's private explanation and pronounce my conclusion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you supporting a specific language group that makes unethical acts such as 'Lets make a deal'(here). Your implicit (possibly inadvertent) support to that group is damaging the reputation of some Wikipedia articles. See for example the current fate of Carnatic Music. All Sr editors have quit editing that article due to implicit supports by Admins(here), some may be with same language background. For the past several months only Ncmvocalist has managed make 99.99% of edits (Majority language based POV) with the support of language groups and some Admins such as Guy. Let good editors make articles and stop those who make wiki dramas such as framed community-ban.(here) BTW This is NOT Naadapriya. Please focus on issues not reading minds. Bye the bye I like your photos on your user pages particularly current one. If possible post the photo of full building which stands for unbiased justice.76.212.12.238 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that you confirmed I'm a sockpuppet, even though I am not. Since it had happened to others I know, I made sure to speak to an admin, Xeno, beforehand. He assured me that, as long as I made good edits, I would not be accused or harassed. And yet, it seems this was false. Why did you claim I'm a sockpuppet? WitchAlliance (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were accused, and my CU evidence shows that you are editing from the same ISP and same residential area as Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but... the sockpuppetry case has been closed and archived, and she's still not blocked despite your confirmation... Erigu (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see she's just been blocked. I hope I didn't bother you with this. Erigu (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actions by Guy and you have made Carnatic Music article untouchable by others editors. See the latest reverts. No one can revert POV statements made with support of references from another encyclopedia that needs to be verified and news report from a paper that patronizes a specific language culture. You appeared to have done some good contributions to articles related to India. Hope you will find time to liberate CM article from domination by a particular language group and make it a more reliable article. NOT Naadapriya 76.212.12.238 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid! I need your help on Bollywood films and plagiarism. One user, Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) has been adding films to the list of "Films alleged to contain plagiarism", using completely unreliable sources, even blogs.

Back in time, he was at first saying such things as "It's a clear remake, we all know that". He was (and still is) under the impression that sources must not be added. Then he started adding sources when he saw that his edits are otherwise reverted. But most of them were blogs and fansites. I cleaned up the list, leaving only the titles that use reliable sources. Asked him to find reliable sources, as per WP:RS. Now he keeps reverting my edits to his own version asking me to prove hat they are unreliable. I (I know exactly what can and what cannot be considered reliable as someone who was involved with a FA about an Indian actor and even had many troubles because of this very reason) explained that the burden of proof is on him, and as for the sources, he is the one who adds them, hence he is the one who must prove their reliability when they are questioned.

In an attempt to help him, I even added some sources myself. Today for example I removed a questionable source and replaced it with an article from The Hindu. It does not help, and the page is still being reverted arduously (and the unreliable sources re-added). Now he even edits my messages on the talk page and deleted my replies.

Could you please help me somehow? Talk to him? Protect the page? Or anything else? I turn to you because you are an Indian editor and this issue would be perhaps more familiar to you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want my say in the matter. News sites like oneindia.com, thaindian.com , and industry expert sites like iefilmi.com are being rejected. I already explained why other sites are included (as they included entries written by experts in the industry) but these were also deleted without explanation. As for the edits on the talk page, Shshshsh (talk · contribs)'s edits moved my replies on his questions allover the place (easily verified by seeing the history for yourself). And he refuses to undo what he did to my replies, hence the need for me to undo it for him. And has the cheek to say I was vandalizing his replies when I was merely undoing the damage he did to mine.

As a final note, I never said anything about the films, and only posted citations on them. Don't know where he got the "its clearly a remake" thing from. Unless its about another article which is not in context with my current edits. Apologies for dragging you into this, but I won't have someone sliming my name all over the place just because he does not agree with me.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff which shows exactly what he said in the beginning. Here is the diff that shows his removal of my message and the edits he made to my message.

Nishkid, I ask you just to state what your opinion is. If you think that Bollywoodmantra, bollycat, desiclub etc., are reliable, I have no intention to go on with the matter. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not giving a clear picture. I've said from the beginning that the edits were screwing up with my replies. This was my original post [8].

And after he made his edits it ended up looking like this. [9] With all my replies out of place. And its been ping-ponging between these 2 edits.

I repeatedly asked him to look at the results of his edits before he makes new changes, yet he says I'm vandalising his replies when he's clearly the one doing the vandalising. I'm not trying to make a fool out of him, but this childish behaviour of taking the first stab at accusing the victim is getting infuriating. His edit history on the page say it all.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's leave the talk page incident outside. He can see that alone without you guidance. What interests me more right now is Nishkid's reply to article incident. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to leave that aside, you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, did you? Afraid it spoils your credibility?Zhanzhao (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... Looking forward to your reply, Nishkid. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going on this, I'd say hindu.com, TimesofIndia, slough.gov.uk and maybe iefilmi.com are reliable. The rest look unlikely. Of course, I think this matter should be judged solely based on WP:RS. Check out to see if they meet our reliable sources policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/86.151.126.95

[10] [11] [12]

These pages need semiprotections from Nangparbat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[13] this page has been attacked too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Thegreyanomaly at User talk:EdJohnston#Nangparbat is back. I have semiprotected some of the articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harassment_by_dynamic_IP_sockpuppets_of_banned_user_Naadapriya. That's pretty obviously who the IP is if you check his contributions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...of JA/G socks in the last couple of days. Care to check and make sure I didn't miss any? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work! I got a few more based on what you did. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Give ResearchEditor's substantial sockpuppetting, would a hardblock be appropriate? I'm kinda sick of chasing him/her/it/them around wikipedia and de-POV-pushing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I thought there was a magic way of blocking all edits by that IP address (I think this section, for either hard block or soft block with account creation disabled is what I'm talking about). I mentioned it to I believe Tiptoety or another admin a while back but can't find the talk page posting. I believe his/her criteria was extended socking, which has been met. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So even that list is not necessarily all RE. That makes sense, some of the contributions don't match his usual modus operandi. So there's nothing that can really be done about it, just keep monitoring and reverting? Sigh. Thanks for the help, much appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/81.158.129.26 Special:Contributions/86.153.128.18

Pages needing semiprotection:
States and territories of India
Dentistry
Talk:Battle of Longewala
Religious violence in India
Pakistan Army
Ethnicity of performers in pornography

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]