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. A fellow editor persists in deleting proper, properly sourced material, such as [1]. I know that you are an experienced baseball editor and wikipedian; perhaps you can help out if the behavior persists?--Ethelh (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you remember the persistent sock-puppeteer on Iranian articles you blocked about a month back? Well, he's back as Ghazne 12 (talk · contribs). With a disguise that poor I don't think we need to run a check-user. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nishkid64!

You have unblocked user:OckhamTheFox, but he still says that his IP is still blocked. Could you please check it and deblock his IP if possbile? Thank you!

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock lifted. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would it be considered vandalism to compare Said to Bush, both bold, decisive nationalists? And why on earth not mention Said's stone thowing in the introduction to the article?

Please. Let's get Said's reputation straight for the large sector of the public that will encounter his name for the first and only time on Wikipedia.

-LaurelCanyon310- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcanyon310 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out my cock-up with the move of Madame Blavatsky. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your argument about the Bush comparison (in the sense that Bush probably had not read Said; that he just came across a comparable worldview on his own), but don't you imagine that Said meant for the "stone-throwing" incident to signify more than the casting of a single stone? Seems like we at least ought to take his highly symbolic act as seriously as he did.

It's hardly vandalism, at any rate. Though highly revealing when it comes to the value of Wikipedia as a human institution: that any disruption of the dominant political order can be smashed immediately and unilaterally by one cowboy editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcanyon310 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

173.51.113.96 (talk · contribs) has stated that he is attempting to create an account but has run into an autoblock. He is not in fact autoblocked, but he was {{checkuserblock}}ed by you; per policy, I have put his unblock request on hold while waiting for a comment by you. Just letting you know. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

76.232.254.170 (talk · contribs) keeps removing references although ALL his edits are already reverted several times by several users. The articles he vandalizes are Farah Province, Kabul Province, Helmand Province, among others. -119.152.246.214 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have helped me with South Asia related articles in the past, so I felt I could approach you of a trouble-making IP. User:92.3.126.124 has going to pages concerning South and Central Asia, making up a region known as South Central Asia and littering it all over the place. (See the IP's contribs). S/he has been warned twice, and continues these edits. Can you help me with this editor.

Some places I have reverted his edits include (and made notifications on the associated talk pages): Flags of Asia South Asia Southwest Asia There are some other reverts, I have made. Some (but not all) of those included some of the kinds of POV-pushing edits that Nangparbat has made (but I don't know if this guy is a sock of Nangparbat, but it seems unlikely). All their edits are unsourced

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on this guy's edits. Some edits seem to be helpful, others not. Maybe talking to this guy will help. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We (I and another user) have told him not to stop making these edits, but he repeatedly continued them Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please check the contribs on the IP 82.178.0.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Looks like Shahin Giray (talk · contribs) is back. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just look at some of his contribs: [2] Grandmaster 06:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not him. This guy is from a different continent than Shahin Giray. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be an open proxy? Grandmaster 12:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, thanks for your interference. Grandmaster 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is the same person: 82.178.1.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He is evading his block. Grandmaster 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move Georgiy R. Gongadze to Georgiy Gongadze but couldn't and was advised to ask help of an administrator. So here I am! Since the international media calls him Georgiy Gongadze, not Georgiy R. Gongadze I think the page should be moved, will you do this please? Thakx vor korrekting zome ov my zpelling miztaces in the artikle! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You stated you'd follow up on this in a few hours, but that was yesterday...and yesterday's gone...

Also, I'm not entirely aware how checkuser analysis is done (that's pretty much by design...), but you may also want to consider the results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Dottie/Archive (an account linked to sockpuppetry by User:ThreeE) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan/Archive (an account-holder who seems to have a personal grudge against me, accused me of murder, and left death threats). My patience for such harassment is wearing thin. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an awfully large rangeblock--any chance it can be lifted? Blueboy96 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not. Immediately after making the unblock request, a registered user on that IP used it to create an offensive username. If anything I'd change it to a hard block for a longer period, as users on that range have been causing problems for months. --Versageek 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's too many good faith users on that IP range, so a hardblock doesn't appear to be the best option. The current block looks good, considering that he's going crosswiki now to create vandal accounts. Most recently, the account "Nish kid64" on et.wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser#et:User:Nish_kid_64). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have re-instated the indefinite block of the above account, who is co-incidentally an administrator on ru-EN, for (continuing) violation of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Editing on behalf of banned users re Bambifan101 (talk · contribs). I note that your unblock reasons were that OtF was not B101. This may have been as the original blocking admin used the incorrect option from the drop down menu, and didn't explain themselves further - however, I would point out, that in matters of policy violations that meatpuppets are treated in the same manner as sockpuppets in that the edits are at the behest of the banned user. Notwithstanding the above, I note that post unblock the OtF account resumed their campaign to create/edit an article that is very much a matter of great interest of B101. Given that communications between OtF and B101 are now being conducted off Wiki I am of the opinion that the continuing efforts in editing in areas of B101's interests are at the prompting of the banned account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you already know this, but User:141.156.229.98[3] has very similar edits to User:138.88.103.233[4]. After an IP check and a mapquest inquiry, it appears there is only 22-23 miles distance between the cities in question. Just thought I'd let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I've been treating these guys as the same person. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the smoke screen he is producing is to cover this part, 5,000 to 10,000 Serbian heavy knights led by Despot Stefan Lazarevic..., which he wanted removed from the beginning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know why he's engaging in revisionism. Maybe an anti-Serb who doesn't want recognition of Serbian participation in the battle? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the article back before the Edit warrior arrived. The template contains more referenced information. If you disagree, let me know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid64! Thanks for adding those refs to Holocaust denial. Every sentence that's backed up by refs is a sentence that cannot be denied; anything that relies on "common knowledge" is fodder for fringe theorists. Besides, "common knowledge" != WP:V. Thanks again -- Timberframe (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you were processing the report, Christinarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up. Can you do a quick peek and add it to the report so that everything can get processed in one pass?—Kww(talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I already  Confirmed it as a sock on the SPI? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somedays my brain doesn't work properly. I saw it wasn't on the list of reports, didn't see that you had added it in the list of socks.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be a checkuser on User:AlixofHesse?

• They have turned up at Talk:Anna Anderson for the first time immediately after my request for a topic ban on User:Finneganw.
• They use similar phraseology to User:Finneganw: compare There's nothing special about... with There is nothing special about...
• They have interests which mirror User:Finneganw's.
• Their views are identical with User:Finneganw's.
• The activity on User:Alixof-Hesse's account (6–7 May, 18 May and 24 July) all falls within gaps of activity on User:Finneganw's account (5–8 May, 15–20 May, 24 July). DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Dominic to run a check. He says they're  Unrelated. Could be meatpuppetry, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, Jesus be praised! "Meat-puppetry"! So you guys have caught on at last, eh? And I commend Kiernan for attempts to kick finnegan off the topic--fat lot of good that'll do you people. I warned you in good faith about those a-holes. Some admins just never listen. Oh...take it or leave it, Nishkid, I apologise to you for referring to you repeatedly in so many insulting ways. I really do. As stated, take it or leave it.75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • By the way, isn't it yourself Nishie who protected Finneganw's talk page against me? You'd better watch what you inject into the debate about his topic-ban. You were one of his biggest fans not too many days ago!75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I protected Finneganw's talk page because you're an indefblocked editor. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that right there is why I have been mean about you in the past. With Finneganw and aggiebean running rampant, and only now are they being put in check, you picked me as "the example". Why do I not get the just satisfaction of seeing you do that to Finnie? A disruptor, a liar, a sock-pupeteer, and you protecting him until you're forced not to protect him anymore. This is what you were taught about fairness, is it? And though I wanted to let off my steam here, don't bother responding to this.75.21.103.17 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user insists on changing "Persian Iraq" to "foreign Iraq", based on some bizarre original research, dismissing and changing the sourced information [5]. Also, in doing so, he has already broken 3RR in Iraq ([6], [7] [8] [9]). Alefbe (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his edit [10], Mussav has also returned misinformation about the location of Iraq Ajami and has cited britannica for it (while that region is not related to Khuzestan at all and there is no such claim in Britannica). Alefbe (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, the Kosovo article is under "arbcom probation". This means that you are not supposed to lock the article over edit warring, you are supposed to block the accounts you catch reverting more than once, on sight and without further warning. Any other approach simply amounts to the resignation to the article just remaining locked indefinitely: this is a RL geopolitical dispute, and as long as we accept partisan contributors, there won't be any "consensus" while the RL dispute lasts. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the editors in question must be placed under discretionary sanctions before any legitimate arbitration enforcement action can occur. Although I agree with your suggestion in spirit, I'm not going to give any troublesome user the chance to appeal their block/ban on the technicality that I didn't sufficient warn them. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you would rather lock down the entire Kosovo article than block a user because you are afraid they will place a {{unblock}} request on a "technicality" no reviewing admin in their right mind would consider valid? Then I would suggest your "balls" as an admin are entirely in the wrong place, you are bold enough to cause significant disruption to the editing process, but not bold enough to take heat from trolls you block. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even what I said. I said blocks for arbitration enforcement don't apply if the user isn't already under discretionary sanctions. Anyawy, I already know how you feel about page protection, so excuse me if I don't start reassessing my whole admin style based on your latest reprimand on my talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans articles, particularly Kosovo have been changed without consensus by Dab, Evklakis, Cinema, Brutaldelux without consensus, leading to unnecessary reversion of articles.--SpanishBoy2006 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd apprecate a sockpuppet check of the several SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're all the same person. Blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address these same users at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trippleact? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his recent edits (like [11] and [12]). Deleting links to related articles from reputable Encyclopedias is more like vandalism. What makes it more ridiculous is to to refer to WP:ELNO to justify that. Alefbe (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I find it easier to just ask the person directly. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I ask the person directly [13], but when I see insistence (with these types of edit summary), I find it useless to ask the person directly. Alefbe (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take care of the TOR nodes being used at the moment (see my block log)? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hit them all. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks -- there seems to be another one after your blocks. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got them. One of them wasn't him, but there was some sockpuppetry and votestacking, so I blocked the rest of the sockfarm too. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Oh, those are him all right -- remember from before when he was using Klingon usernames? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Retrieving an account. An IP (68.105.161.129) has forgotten his/her login entirely • S • C • A • R • C • E • 04:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, the user has been warned for two un-constructive edits, the user maybe be trying to work around a soon-to-be block • S • C • A • R • C • E • 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

thank you for deleting the tpo that I made with the charactergory Category:New York City public Officials. i was about to put it up on miscellan for deletions until you helped me out! Thanks!!!! User:Smith Jones 15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you most recently unblocked MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs), I'd value your opinion about the topic ban I imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarshallBagramyan and about MarshallBagramyan's appeal at User talk:Sandstein#Topic ban. Best,  Sandstein  22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. But it's not too late to change your mind... :P MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's too late. I've been sucked in. Oh well! :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness: there is no other job like it. I couldn't imagine doing anything else. You will never be bored. You have to really love it, though - people who get into it for the wrong reasons, or with misconceptions about the reality of it, or who just realize halfway through that it's not for them, can be truly miserable, unless they find their way into radiology or anesthesiology or something... :) Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definitely true. though I foresee visceral changes in how medicine is practiced in US. hopefully it will make the job more not less satisfying. do consider UIC. we used to call it "Univ of Indians and Chinese" . best of luck.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine's been a lifelong dream. I'm sure I'll feel right at home! :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll control myself in the future. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 82.178.0.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is without any doubt the same person as 82.178.0.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 82.178.1.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and he continues edit warring and making inflammatory comments at AA topics, despite recent blocks. Please have a look at his contribs. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now 194.186.188.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It is the same person, but I wonder how he manages to change continents so quickly. Maybe he uses meatpuppets. Grandmaster 04:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please semi-protect Khanate of Nakhichevan and Khanate of Erevan‎? There have been too much IP vandalism on those articles recently. Grandmaster 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a banned user, nor would I really constitute this as obvious vandalism. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Azad chai (talk · contribs). He was waging a similar edit war before: [14] and now: [15] Grandmaster 05:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can tell, it's not Azad chai. Azad chai came from the US, while this guy's in Moscow. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gronvich is a newly-created user which seems to be Mussav's sock-puppet. They are both involved in edit-warring over Persian Iraq, and the discussion in its talk page. Gronvich's edits are quite the same as Mussav's current edits and his old edits (compare the pattern of their edits in Persian Iraq with Mussav's edits in Ahvaz and its talk page). Alefbe (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edits are suspicious. CU data shows they're both editing from the same general location, but it's unlikely that they're the same person (they edited from two separate ISPs just a few minutes apart). I do think that there might be some meatpuppetry here, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 year expiry time? NOW we're talkin'. The spammers for that particular site are relentless. --King ♣ Talk 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies. :) The guy went through 40 open proxies in 30 minutes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, remove secrets without actually using the word "secrets" in the edit summary :P Oh well, time to phone up Oversight XD --King ♣ Talk 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oh well. AbuseFilter will get him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if we reactivate this (especially in light of its very great usefulness today)? The false positive which (I'm guessing) caused you to deactivate it seems like it's very unlikely to recur. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here. Prodego suggested I deactivate it for now and reactivate it when this guy was back (which could be soon, I suppose). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious backlog going on. Is there anything that can be done? I've gone through the cases and moved them from the non-checkuser queue to the checkuser queue when appropriate (even though I can't approve them), and marked the ducks. I've asked for help with the ducks at WP:AN, but not many seem to want to step up to the plate.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually stick to handling the checkuser queue and leave the rest to the clerks to decide. Perhaps we may need to bring more clerks into the process? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of the cases have already been handled, but haven't been archived by the bot yet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix it. The last conclusion was that there are enough non-admin clerks, or I'd volunteer. Some of the cases pending clerk approval are pretty ducky, but need a checkuser because the goal is to block the underlying IP (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125, for example).—Kww(talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP consistently vandalizes Asia and Southwest Asia. On Asia they consistently remove the map that shows the UN subregions. On Southwest Asia they continually and inaccurately insert Iran into the UN subregion of Western Asia. I have warned them about this edit on their talkpage but the keep on making the same edit. Can something be done about this user. Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's caught behind a checkuser-based rangeblock you placed (Black Rabite) and is requesting unblock. His record looks OK. Does it look OK enough to you to give him an exemption? Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assist. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This individual[16] continues to input weasel words within the article, "alleged", "allegedly"[17]. I'd would place a "concern" on his/her talk page, but judging from his/her contributions(which seem to be of the same nature) it would be a moot point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...due to the deluge of vandalism. When to amend it, I leave to your discretion. Best, WilliamH (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently using Huggle and I came across excessive vandalism to your page like [[18]]. I thought I should let you know. I reverted it and another user protected your page. Happy editing;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 00:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow... apparently you hit a nerve blocking proxy IPs... STAY STRONG, BROTHER --King ♣ Talk 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this is the usual coming from a certain banned user's 4chan minions. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Obviously kept the POV pushers under the cosh YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well float it YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAR one? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, which one specifically? The one about slowing down FAR submission for a while? Or the other one about adding more delegates? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, have you considered being FAR delegate yourself? I think you'd be an excellent candidate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we certainly could use some more closers at FAR, since YellowMonkey participates at most FARs and Raul654 only closes when pinged by YellowMonkey. I'm certainly game for it, but I don't know what the greater community thinks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a nomination process... certainly the more energising FAR gets, the better YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your warning at Talk:Kosovo and wanted to draw your attention to this unconstructive comment. BalkanFever 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for losing my focus, I've been provoked for the entire day by personal attacks, as you may have noticed on my talk page, and lost my cool. I will make sure that it doesn't happen again. Thanks for the warning, --Cinéma C 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please take a look at this? I believe such matters do not belong on the Kosovo talk page. Thanks, --Cinéma C 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yousaf465' 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do a sample edit to that section to let me know what you mean? Should I be putting Canaan as the author for these? Thanks again for your help. Tiamut^talk 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the ones where your reference has a direct link to the Canaan article (e.g. Jstor link) just remove the <ref> tags around it and voila, you have a formatted publication entry. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some intervention needs to be taken against this IP. The continually convert Azad Kashmir wikilinks to Azad Jammu and Kashmir wikilinks and Indias to Republic of Indias. They also removed J&K from India articles stating that J&K are disputed ([19] [20] [21] [22]). I have been going around reverting several of this user's edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps on making the similar edits. It appears that they have not learned anything from their 48h ban. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, looks like someone already gave them a new 72 hour block Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user needs a new block, they appear to be continuing all the edits they have been blocked for. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This user does not seem to get the message that their edits are disruptive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this likely Scibaby incarnation: User:Never Fad Away. Thanks! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another: User:Newton's Appel. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And...User:Kut or Bait Fish Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again... User:Dileep2002

Ha, I just blocked the guy and saw your message on my talk. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's taken to using IPs now that the rangeblocks are gone. In the past couple of hours he's used 70.6.60.113, 70.0.235.163, 68.26.96.3 and 68.26.239.145. Blocking 70.0.0.0/12 probably isn't in the cards but I don't know what else can be done. Stuck with whack-a-mole, I guess. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have reached consensus on an editing plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#We_have_consensus

Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like appreciating the line. Very well put.Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like. It's easy to get distracted from the big picture by internal wiki politics. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're using an IP now. [28] Same old nonsense "sourced" by instapedia. Edward321 (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The hoaxer appears to have started to infest the Italian Wikipedia [29] [30] [31] and the French Wikipedia [32] [33] Is there any method for warning the editors of those Wikis so the hoax does not appear on any verson of Wikipedia? Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've sent an e-mail to other cross-wiki CUs on the global CheckUser-L mailing list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]