(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)
(Archive 6, December 2012 - May 2014)

open n shut case i believe, can you cheek spi case [1]. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memorial has been nominated for merging with Template:Obituary. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

im confused as to why you didnt allow the page i asked to publish as its a real person with real eye witness accounts as well as proof and videos online not just youtube real intervews with people as well as twitter verification and google and he was in the local papers of his home town in scotland ? but yet hes not given a page. yes u had more to add to the page and update it at a later date but it was a start..

yet just last day i seen some girl on twitter who works at fucking tesco she pays for a modeling shoot and get some pictures taken unpublished and shes on wikipedia ?? i take it cause shes a woman and has tits or the person who wrote it also works with wiki as her bio was her name place of birth and nothing else not a single fact about her or picture just that she was a "model' lol and there are plenty of these empty fake pages yet not a real one like this ?? i can see like any company cheats will let friends on its not what you know its who you know— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamjoehalenbeck (talk • contribs)

You are perfectly free to submit your draft for submission using the button provided at the top of User:Iamjoehalenbeck/Joe_Halenbeck. However, the draft is unacceptable in its current state because you have not included any citations. A citation is not simply writing "a magazine interview". You have to give enough information for someone to actually find exactly where the content is sourced. That means title, date, author, publication (and if it's on the internet, the web address). And it has to be something independent of the subject. A Google search is not a source. Someone's twitter account is not a source. An interview is not a good source. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia does not care what you have to say about yourself; Wikipedia only cares what other people have said about you in reliable publications (i.e. magazines, newspapers, and similar digital sources - not social media). Ultimately, you should not be writing about yourself on Wikipedia. It rarely works out well. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you added tags to some of the user pages on blocked sockpuppet accounts from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aldota. However, it would appear that one-by-one throwaway IPs are vandalising these user pages by removing or amending the tags so the account no longer appears in the category.

I have restored all the tags on all the account I have found, however, you may wish to add the userpages to your watchlist to monitor any potential future vandalism or protect the pages, thanks take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whereismylunch (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry the date is wrong. When i sent you message it should be october 5, not september 26.Whereismylunch (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Some, User:Klaus_Barner was banned a year ago over inappropriate edits at adequality. Recently an IP has been deleting properly sourced material there, which is the same material the banned user attempted to delete before being banned. Please advise what the appropriate course of action may be. Tkuvho (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Someguy, I moved you from active to temporarily inactive on the SPI clerk page. Obviously, you're welcome to move yourself back to active if you start clerking again. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Someguy1221. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Thoriq. If you can help me, i want to create my user page. 2 years ago, you blocked me so i can't do anything, so i want to say sorry, and next time i will not do such kind of this mistakes. If you are interested on helping me creating my user page, i would be happy to see your replies and comments. You can also contact me through my email "thoriqrahmat65@gmail.com" . Thanks, and once again sorry for everything i did wrong to you and Bye! Thoriq Rahmat E.R (talk) 04:57, Friday 27 March 2015

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_North_Korea#Prevalence

This section seems pretty baised/poorly written, but before i erased it, I'd like your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofgun (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete it. It's clearly just one random person's opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you dealt with this before, could you take a look? [2] Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Someguy, would it be okay if I move you back to an active clerk? You're certainly acting like one (), and it's much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Go right ahead. I plan to stick around for a while. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: When I was a clerk, I just did it... now you're a CU, so you could even get a clerk fired :P --Rschen7754 05:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a bit like biting the hand that feeds me.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admiration 5-Star Barnstar
	Why? Because you "get it". Please keep doing what you do. I read your user page, and took the liberty of quoting one of your comments on my TP. Atsme📞📧 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad something I wrote was actually helpful to someone! But I should point out that I have never been a member of ArbCom. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to point out a glaring error on your User page. You have the title, "Why there are hard and fast rules". However, it says in WP:PG that "[...] Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules [...]". Hope that helps. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. The essay on my userpage is actually older than the wording of that policy. It's also more accurate than that policy, so I'll leave it as is. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask to jump the queue, but is there any chance you could prioritise this case? The socks are proliferating. Happy for you to say no. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Atsme^📞📧 02:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection. μηδείς (talk)

Re this, see this and this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the edit filter you (Someguy1221) referred to is looking for, but perhaps the misspelled editor's name "Ediablehulk" might be a useful addition. Or else the concatenation of editors' names that seem to reappear in all of these posts. I've protected Wikipedia talk:Reference desk again; if you have any objections, you're welcome to remove or alter the protection without notifying me. Deor (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your humorous userboxes based on various insults/comments. I made a few myself, shown below. Any idea where I could find some more good ones? GAB^Hello! 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GAB. I made those userboxes myself, so I wouldn't know where to tell you to find more. Though yours look good. Reminds me that I haven't gotten any insults lately worthy of becoming a userbox. I have to work on that :) Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up one half of the mess of the long-standing Fnagaton/Glider87 saga. I would like to urge you to also block Fnagaton permanently as per my comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fnagaton, or get other check users involved to permanently eradicate the behavior of their common master, who has been doing this sort of thing for a long time. Kbrose (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel right unilaterally raising the block to indef, but I'm open to an AN or ANI discussion regarding a community ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you blocked User:Cyphoidbob-omb just as I nominated him for a block on Admin. Intervention against vandalism. And I believe that an indef block wouldnt be a problem with all the themes at play but I do not think that it was right to delete the user and the page. I feel they have the right to an appeal and to reform. Now they are probably just going to come back as a angrier vandal, as they suggested sockpuppetry. If possible, I think it would be a good idea to restore the user and keep the block in place. Thanks. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the behavior, Cyphoidbob-omb is without doubt already a sockpuppet of blocked or banned user. Since he may have been looking for attention, I chose to deny him that attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im inchouring about the message you sent me I am one individual representing the company and am not violating any terms or conditions, Lebedyansky.co (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to block his user talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Someguy, can you explain to us what makes Ms. Kalliope Meier-Zafiriou a valuable and trustworthy source for you? And what exactly makes her acclaimed newer testimonies (with intensive putting of words in her mouth by Luc Bürgin) standing out from those of 100+ other persons, which are identified and can be talked to?

What a remarkable viewpoint on the importance of books as source and evidence. After somebody else affording the money to publish the same 499 pages book with its collection of written testimonies you would thus suddenly rate it as a valuable source? Is that objectivity for the Billy Meier article? Zutt (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance on how to get Wikipedia’s editors granting “reliability” status for sources. Am going to try that mechanism. I realize now that you are genuinely motivated to further evolve and improve the Billy Meier article. We share a common interest. The whole thing reminds me of the PLOS.org article from 14th August 2015, concerning controversial topics in Wikipedia. One has in that context to wonder, how an article for the man who was supposedly called Jesus could ever happen, considering that the reliability of each and every source is obviously as good as zero. Zutt (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jesus article. I see, this is all about the worshipping cult, not about life and facts for a real person. But then the topic and title should be corrected to read “Christianity” or “Worshipping of Jesus Christ”. Otherwise the reader is misled, thinking to learn something objective about a historical figure. Zutt (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Someguy1221, thanks for your answer to my question on the Science Reference Desk. I have replied to your answer. Regards, Rich144.35.45.43 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A tag has been placed on Marcy Blum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.destinationweddingcongress.com/speakers.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet investigation page was created ,a tag on that page is – This SPI case is open. ,the investigation under process. Can we add a speedy deletion tag for this page? Sock puppet investigation pages(Under process) are eligible for speedy deletion? (Okmikjnuhb (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

This probably relates to a decidedly abnormal case. Bogus SPI pages created by socks of a blocked user Nsmutte to harass editors may be speedied as G3 or G5. And those created as talk pages of non-existent SPIs or because the SPI page has been salted are also subject to speedy G8. See:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bonadeaphone
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bonadea
• Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/David Biddulph
• Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/ bonadeaphone

and probably others I didn't notice. Meters (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hellow meters: If these are bogus SPI cases, automatically will be declined by investigation authority,no need to delete the page in middle of investigatin,i have some other doubt,the pages who deleted may be socks of bonadea ?in my point of view wait for an end result of a SPI case ,either declined/endorsed. (Okmikjnuhb (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The answer to your question is yes. All pages created by banned users can and should be speedily deleted, per this policy. In addition, attack pages are also deleted speedily, and SPIs without any basis in actual fact (such as SPIs created about valid alternate accounts) are attack pages. --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marcy Blum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcy Blum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TucsonDavid here, I've been inactive due to my military duties, I've now rejoined, I'm requesting that my IP flag be restored as I travel for the military and must deal with many firewalls and other security measures I also teach at a university so lots of problems there. So if you could restore my permissions it'd be awesome thanks for your time. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 07:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TusconDavid. A request like this should be emailed to the functionaries group as a whole, or requested from a specific Checkuser. Though I am a functionary, I'm an oversighter and not a checkuser. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I'm having problems with my internet access right now. Would you be so kind as to forward my request or post the email on my talk. Thanks TucsonDavidU.S.A. 08:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Someguy1221, I see you blocked said user not that long ago for disruptive editing. In the relatively short time that has passed, nothing has changed regarding his editorial conduct. We have tried on so many occassions to get through him (e.g. [3][4][5]) to make him understand that his editorial pattern is, unfortunately, still rampant ever since, and that he should ask help from e.g. the TeaHouse (I told him) if he really wants to keep on going here, and doesn't want to see himself getting blocked. He, however, never ever listened to our advise, except from making feigned promises every single time, and still continues with the very same extremely disruptive edits ever since.[6][7][8][9] He has been warned by numerous other users for being disruptive as well, including admins, all to no avail.[10][11] As a result of all this, virtually every single day we have to revert his edits, and tell him to stop being disruptive for reason "xyz", either on his talk page or either through edit summaries. This is a cat and mice game that is, unfortunately, in my opinion, only going to end with admin action. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked this over, but I think it deserves an ANI thread, rather than unilateral action. I feel like he's hovering in that space described at WP:GIANT. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221, you really think so? These are some more of his recent disruptive edits.[12][13][14][15]. On so many occasions, good faith has been assumed, and he has been given so many warnings as well, yet virtually nothing has changed regarding his editorial conduct. This will simply never end unless new admin action is taken. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again, yes, I think so. The edits he's making are not disruptive in isolation. It's the totality of his behavior, and I think that deserves a larger hearing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Proxies.22, and thanks for it. I do, however, feel that the Edit summaries should say more than "Proxies," which doesn't mean a darn thing to most people, and I hope you will take it up with the other editor. All of these changes to the links felt very demeaning to me, considering the time I spent in making sure they were accurate. Also, I put in hours in writing the articles, and I felt very slighted by the lack of specificity in the Edit summaries. I really think WP editors should plainly communicate what they are doing, when they do it, as you did in your remark when closing the Incident. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Someguy1221_spamming_me_with_threatening_letters. Somewhat less than believable in my humble opinion. Meters (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally restored some vandalism here can you take care of it? Thanks Feinoha ^Talk 02:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why revdel it? It's typical juvenile vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think it's okay (that my mistake doesn't need it) then I'll withdraw the above request. Feinoha ^Talk 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not a big deal. Everyone will see it's just a mistake. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for taking prompt action at User:HicManebimusOptime ANI. I wonder if you could also revdel these posts: diff 1 and diff 2, which are of similar intent? At the time it was posted, I did not know that this behaviour is considered doxing and is sanctionable. The IP editor seems unrelated to the one that just was blocked, but if you could remove these diffs, I would appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That one's not trivial because I'd have to get rid of all 97 revisions between the first edit and the current revision. Best to email that request to oversight. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP's posting that question get reverted and blocked on sight. Take a look at the OPs contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the thread. We really don't need Nazi apologist propaganda on the boards. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My sock-sense was tingling, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt on the initial question. His followup erased all doubt. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Someguy1221:, i am here to invite as you assisted me last in sock puppet investigation of User:Amir'khan12 and its further three suspected accounts, i am afraid another account has been created as User:PakistaniTV who has same similarities in editing and behavior as it was of those who got banned as a result of previous investigation. That user created Surkh (TV series) for Hum TV and mentioned in article that it was previously named Chohat which you deleted during Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir'khan12/Archive please see into this matter and how to stop it? it is the fourth consecutive such account that has been creating problem following same footsteps of creating Hoax articel and distruptive editing at List of programs broadcast by Hum TV also i want you to protect the page. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you about that block, but I notice the TP still contains some, let's say, dubious material (Toontastic The Movie is an upcoming animated adventure directed by The Emperor's New Groove helmer Mark Dindal). Should it not be blanked or something? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But a week later Wikipedia is still advertising it for the entertainment value. This is really disappointing. Do you think everyone has had their fun now? zzz (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up and logged on this a.m. to find a note from GAB that I'd posted to a closed SPI discussion. Somehow, the closed discussion had popped up on my watchlist as if it were current. I wrote this to GAB and will include MelanieN and the other editors whom I'd pinged on my edit.

Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

So, you're the last of those I'd pinged. I'll certainly be more careful in the future. Activist (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

216.171.49.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has now returned as 153.130.144.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Yinf (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Someguy1221,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Someguy1221.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened? Pyrusca (talk)

Just a troll being a troll, and us cleaning up after him. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i did not realize my image was not valid. It was my first time and i was not sure this was a big consequence. Can you do me a favor an add a image Of Fiji Prime minster Frank Bainimarama in his wiki page thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfmgnlllj (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself, you just need to find an appropriate picture. One that is explicitly released to the public domain or under a free license like CC-BY-SA. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank YOU for working on a sockpuppet case and bringing to a speedy close! Jennica✿ / talk 01:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't lie when I say I am ecstatic that they have been blocked. Not to be taken meanly! I've been "keeping track" of their edits and going through their history and fixing some stuff. They have mucked up far too many articles. Altan (band) is just one example... and this is after I tried pairing the headers down. The crowning jewel is the "Band members" section but I believe they wrote the bulk of the article and it shows. Anyways, I will keep a look out for any future edits they might have. Thank you so much! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. If you see any new socks in the future, just report it to the same SPI page that I had moved it to, and maybe ping me. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's another editor that has a similar editing style as Hurlu and it's totally my suspicion. I don't know if I should post it in the investigation? I'd rather have someone else take a look before I start an 'official' investigation. Here's my evidence so far. There are many similarities -- including certain bands endlessly and little to no edit summaries.

• Suspected user edit summary: "The size of the Malicorne never exceeded 7 permanent members! See the timeline...!" and "Oops!"
• HurluGurmine edit summary: "Much more readable...!" and "Oops!" --Jennica✿ / ^talk 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads up! I've done a little investigation myself, and agree this is most likely another sock. I've asked for a checkuser to look into it, to see if there are more accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably too early but this user who made an account 2 days ago has already edited it on 5 pages Hurlu has edited on. user: Screwperson - but they haven't done anything bad yet. but it's just too good of a coincidence that I thought I'd mention it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worth keeping an eye on. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's totally them and now they've made several edits to the same page saying, "updated since my last visit" - but they've never edited that page with that username, so there's more proof --Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the likelihood of their account being unblocked? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perquisite to an unblock would be their agreement to fess up to their sockpuppetry and a promise to stop basically every disruptive behavior they have been engaging in. Since this editor does not consider his behavior to be disruptive, I consider the chance to be about zero. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am afraid he's at it again. Should I be posting in the investigation page? His new username is Bluecolossus. I don't know the protocol --Jennica✿ / ^talk 17:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I added it here. Sorry for bugging ya! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 17:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the earthquake, they would reasonably suspect cities not too far off would have had the earthquake too, and head off immediately if they had ig enough army? Also, not that much wood growing in Mesopotamia, although i suppose they had an emergence supply stored up from Lebanon. Sorry, semiprote ted at ref desk.108.252.141.219 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could, absolutely. Two scenarios leap to mind: Two nations are already at war, and one is struck by an earthquake, which the other quickly takes advantage other; or possibly, after a large earthquake, a small group of brigands takes advantage and does some raiding and pillaging while the earthquake's victims are distracted and disorganized. It makes perfect sense that under the right constellation of variables, it should work. But except for that one tangential incident in Sparta, there is no record of this ever happening. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

64.231.151.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I smell block evasion. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thanks for letting me know. If this continues in the immediate future, I will probably not be around. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the criticism into a separate section because it seems too detailed for the lead. Believe me, I have nothing but contempt for homeopathy. It is a ridiculous and dangerous pseudoscience. My concern was with the logical structure of the article. Your concern appears to be that the reader will read the lead and not be sufficiently alerted to the low esteem which the subject commands. Paradoxically I was motivated by a similar worry–I was concerned the the reader might skim over the lead and then go on to read the rest of the article under the impression that it was a serious science. If there were a whole section with the title Criticism, it would be impossible to miss. Perhaps we could consider a compromise. What if we added a paragraph something like below to the lead? (and kept the Criticism section more or less as I suggested)

Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. It is regarded as dangerous, unethical, and nonsensical by medical science, chemistry, physics, and international health organizations.

OTH, it bothers me that there is still an endless stream of nonsense still in the article.--Toploftical (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw where you moved it to. But I still thought it deserved more than the two sentences in the lead. I think the two paragraphs are an appropriately brief summary of the entire "evidence" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were one of two people who thought my reference desk question regarding hospital gowns being worn or not worn could have some value to improving a Wikipedia article.

I'm not there yet, but I did find one source, which I don't recall at this time, which said a woman having a breast biopsy would either pull the gown down to her waist or wear it so it opened in the front. This may not be useful information for Wikipedia even if the source is acceptable, but it's getting us closer to something we can use.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be useful. While I wouldn't call it a source for our purposes, This refers to a half-length gown.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I want a little attention from you as this matter has already been discussed by certain editors at ANI and you were also the part of the discussion though I did not participate at all. Now I am just giving my point of view on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music but felt belittled by one of the administrators. Please apprise me if i am lacking something in my argument. Regards. Umair Aj (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floq's responses to you seem to be entirely appropriate, if blunt. You were, in fact, also on the verge of getting blocked for edit warring. Also, just a point on language, although I understand in some languages "my dear" is an acceptable way to address a stranger, in some English-speaking cultures it's how you address a child or a close family member, and can be considered insulting. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Umair Aj: Please see wikt:oh dear and compare it to wikt:dear#Adjective #7. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I should wait for more evidence to turn up regarding the Hurulu sockpuppet? or rather, at what point should I re-submit? thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jennica. You should feel free to open a new case every time a new account shows up, or you can post to my talk page, but I can't promise I'll always tackle it quickly. It was merely the checkuser request that I declined. You can still ask for those in the future if you want, that's why we have clerks. I just won't personally pass it along to a checkuser until there's a few more socks. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can he ever be IP blocked or something like that? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like no. The checkusers seem to say that he changes IP frequently, and the the range is so large that any block designed to catch him would also likely block many legitimate editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez he's so persistent, heh. and should I re-submit my report without the checkuser? thanks for answering all my questions. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naww. Unless there are even more socks, you can leave it be for now. I already blocked the newest one you reported and deleted his articles under CSD#G5. Thanks for keeping an eye out for him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This investigation has been open since the 12th and he's still not blocked. I think I messed something up because it's not showing on the main SPI page. also: [16] - edit: i found it. sorry about this --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we technically protect some of the pages Lurulu's socks go on? Altan, Malicorne? It could subside some of it perhaps. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have encountered an IP user that is edit warring.. and he knows a lot of wikipedia policies so it is suspected he is a sockpuppet. I put an SPI report in but I forgot to put 'yes' in checkuser. can this be fixed? [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/73.81.150.34 here's the investigation page]. Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the IP-related cases at WP:SPI have now been declined for CU by Bbb23 because IPs can't be publicly connected to users, despite Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeopleEater143 being clearly connected to the IPs that were more recently abusing multiple accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/73.81.150.34. This is clearly against Wikipedia rules concerning sockpuppeting, so why can nothing be done? We already know the IPs and several accounts connected to them because they're targeting the same material, so surely action can be taken against these disruptive editors? Ss112 18:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jennica:, I do intend to look at this and the previous issue you've brought up, but I've been too busy lately to do more than post some drive-by comments on breaks from work. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

okay no problem. he will just end up signing up for another account. he said I was "playing the kapo in a not-that-far past in some prison camp" for having him blocked all the time. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Someguy1221. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, it's been ten years! Can't believe it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but that did kinda look like a sucker-punch, like in the opening sequence of The Mummy's Tomb's recap of The Mummy's Hand, where the hero points a gun at evil priest and says "I'll give you 3" but because the scene is condensed he follows this promise of a count of 3 by immediately shooting. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the policy on linking online retro movie reviews that themselves use fair use rationales, when we would only post the link for humour purposes outside the mainspace, but I got the reference from a James Rolfe video. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely me not bothering to look into the offender's older contributions. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. That's why I said Guy made the right call. But it was still really funny to see a final warning seven minutes before someone else shows up and blocks him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I should know about what happened? It was all removed by the time I looked. It was in response to his edits from 74.102.211.25 (talk · contribs), which I reverted, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email me if you think there are details I should know. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that was the right move, as it automatically created a link to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chrisanthi Likousi, but that category will probably never exist as (and I didn't know this until after I opened the SPI) Chrisanthi Likousi was his/her self a sockpuppet of someone else. Bbb23 and DeltaQuad apparently performed two separate checks on members of this sock-farm several days ago, and each performed blocks, but the farm was never fully categorized under the name of the original master (and I have my doubts that that master's name is Ψάλ). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I didn't even realize that category was created. I guess it's done automatically by the script I use. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in. I assume you picked it up from my contribs so yes it is indeed he. I did wonder about templating him (assuming gender here but hey) but the wording, of the test edits template I looked at, wasn't quite right ... I'd forgotten about the "reverting self tests" one which, though much better, is still not quite right so I've added to its message a little.

I did worry/wonder/speculate whether there was something else going on, though I cannot imagine what it might be. For example, looking at this user's contribs I stumbled into this, which has a slightly amazing pattern of these +1/-1 edits going back a while, and from what I assume cannot be all the same user ... or they are pretty IP-mobile if so! So is it just a lot of coincidence, or some silly game, or is it ... I don't know, something else? Just seems odd, at best.

Thanks again, DBaK (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also: User_talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#These bl**dy annoying +1/-1 edits as it sounds like DerbyCountyinNZ has encountered this already. I currently remain confused. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just going on across a few articles in a few hours, I'd have said, "test edits", like I did when I first looked at this. Now that I see how long it's been going on, I can only assume this is some kind of really weird vandalism. He's probably just doing this for shits and giggles. I don't think it's coordinated vandalism. Rather it's just one person, as both IPs locate to the same city and same ISP - blame Vivo for making their ranges so broad. Anyway, he's blocked for 31 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: to see if someone's stated their gender, use {{gender|Doug Weller}}. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug, noted. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also Someguy1221 for the reply and apologies for my late acknowledgement of it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S. Thanks for removing the rd troll posts. Unfortunately, they returned today and someone replied. I'm not sure how you want to handle this but I did want to make you aware of it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft in your email. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and give feedback.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up the closing statement at the RFC. It is awaiting your countersignature. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. recently I sent an email to Oversight concerning the fact that these two edits: this one and this one have revealed an email address which is probably that of the user. However, the response was that "Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed or revision deleted under our policy Wikipedia:REVDEL". Since you have reverted this kind of edit on this page before and are an oversighter yourself, could you explain why these edits do not meet the suppression criteria? Thanks for your time, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gadget. The standard for oversighting email addresses is that the edit(s) must allow a reader to draw a connection between the address and a person's identity, that is not publicly known. If the edit only tells a reader that the address exists, we generally do not oversight it. This obviously involves some judgement, and reasonable oversighters sometimes disagree with edge cases, but I agree with the oversighter who handled that ticket. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, all the same. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really meant to refer to this edit and this edit. I actually sent Oversight the diffs of the reversion of the bad edits, which might have been why they did not see a problem and have not been hidden. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are precisely the ones I was referring to, and that I believe the other oversighter reviewed. You can also respond to the ticket and ask for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the spate of TFDs. The prime mover is now withdrawing and I suspect this may be at an end. However, three outstanding matters.

1) Should uploading of free files here be deprecated or even become contrary to policy? In theory I favour deprecating but then I think it would become yet another bludgeon to be used against newcomers so maybe I'm opposed. Do you think an RFC would be useful?

(2) I am now clear than some files potentially tagged with the deleted templates should not be uploaded to commons and are OK here. For ones such as {{PD-Tunisia}} (now withdrawn) the template is explicit in saying the image may not be PD in the US (and if so can only be uploaded under fair use here and not at all on commons). For those like {{PD-USGov-DEA}} I think a photo taken in a foreign country would be potentially in copyright there but maybe only if first published in that country. I am asking at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#PD-USGov files first published in a foreign country. The nominations "Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons." seem downright wrong and the discussions at best uninformed. To overturn these seems to me to involve DRV rather than an RFC and my guess is that the files would be sent back to TFD (or WT:Image use policy I might suggest) but they might simply be undeleted. Only two deleting admins seem to have been involved and maybe they would be willing to undelete. The !votes were unanimously to delete so the closes would certainly not be criticised.

(3) Finally, there is a legitimate question as to how comprehensive should be our range of copyright templates. Maybe that is an RFC matter.

This isn't the right venue to be dealing with things but, again, what do you think? Thincat (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey @Thincat:! I totally forgot this was waiting for me to reply to, sorry. To answer your questions with my own opinions:

1) No. Commons is its own beast, separately governed from Wikipedia, and I don't think it should be mandatory to make users do their uploads there instead of here. Though I honestly have no idea how an RFC on that would turn out.

2) I think an RFC would be a better venue for this than DRV, since it is essentially a general question about whether this entire class of content should be carried by Wikipedia, and can be centralized as such, rather than throwing dozens of pages to DRV. RFC seems like a better way to establish a lasting consensus than DRV or XfD.

3) I thought about this one, and I don't know. We could plausibly have every variety of public-domain template relating to every country, or just more general ones (PD-Fakeistan, versus PD-Fakeistan-Army, or even PD-Fakeistan-Army-1stDivision-1972-PvtDavis). We could also plausibly have tempaltes for every version of every free-content license, or again, a more restricted set.

I think most importantly, you decide to take this to RFC, framing the question is essential - I have seen many RFCs get totally derailed from the very beginning by asking the wrong questions, and that has the additional effect of fatiguing the community to the issue. If you decide to start an RFC, I'd be happy to help draft it. To just throw out an idea now, I think the general goal behind it should not be that no PD template should ever be deleted, but rather that "not in use" be considered a bad argument to delete one. We already keep around plenty of maintenance categories that are habitually empty on the premise that they might be used at any time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S. Thanks for all that you do in dealing with the Ref Desk(s) troll. I noticed that in the work with today's posts by this one one edit summary title is still visible. I think it is the same as the ones that were removed so I wanted to let you know about it in case it slipped through the cracks. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Thanks for pointing it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and thanks for zapping it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what you personally think about hiv denialism? Im reading about it because i will go to volunteer in a ngo that workes with hiv positive people and im looking forward to understand more. Never wrote or asked a question in wiki before do im not sure if i can make this personal question here but ill give it a try anyway. Many thanks! Natalia 197.221.251.31 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.221.251.31 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...thought you might find this interesting... Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This troll is weird. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance the following users are one in the same? MusicIsLife241, AT241, and Earflaps? See Auréli1_aka_TIGA ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sugar crash—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tevildo (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you haven't been editing much at Wikipedia lately, and you haven't touched WP:SPI since June of this year. For those reasons, I've moved your clerk status to temporarily inactive. If you decide to jump back into the fray, which would be welcome, just move yourself back to active. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your correction of my resonance description! Happy to learn something new each day :) Kharon (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these words of wisdom. I am thinking of making an Userbox of it — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About this... I am curious why you didn't point the person to WP:AFC.. would you please say?

Also you should be aware that Novotech, Novotech (Australia) Pty Limited, Novotech Australia Pty Limited, and Novotech Clinical Research have also been recently created and deleted. See also fwiw SPI. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, see also User_talk:Cryptic#Article_Creation and User_talk:DMacks#Hii -- DMacks had commented at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_130#Ssgajimouli Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concluded based on his capacity to comprehend Wikipedia at all, that he would be unable to follow the instructions at AFC. And so I thought it would be better to give him a very simple instruction, so that he could come back later if he had more questions. Then after I posted that, I looked into the matter deeper, and basically concluded "oh ffs i don't have time for this." Of course that's a lie, and I did look into this further. I think this is actually three different paid editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Account has been blocked ,don't know why, it may be because of WP:SOCK on shared IP. Please see to it. Even disabled to edit talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UjjawalKrishnam (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @UjjawalKrishnam: Which account you talking about? The one you have right now is not blocked. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. If this is about an account I've blocked, I'm traveling, so my ability to answer questions in a timely manner is sketchy for the next couple weeks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe their IP is hard-blocked. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Please, do something! UjjawalKrishnam (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @UjjawalKrishnam:, the account you're using right now is certainly able to edit. What is the name of the account that was blocked? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed my message, I'd appreciate your views at User talk:Notrogerrabbit. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i just wanted to say thanks for editing my user page for me, i don't mind if it's for saftey reasons and your not just doing it to mess with me, so thanks.

                                                                RemusLupinFanGurl  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemusLupinFanGurl (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello Someguy1221! I'm Cameron11598 and I am an Arbitration Committee Clerk. I just wanted to let you know I've removed the ARCA request at the direction of the committee. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry for bothering, but I just wanted to make sure you got my final inquiry on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2018_August_10#.22High_King_of_Scotland.22. Please ping me if you want to answer! Kind regards--Neufund (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neufund: I think your edit is fine. That styles article in general though, is a little wonky. It switches between Scottish Gaelic and modern English without warning, and doesn't cite sources for the translated titles, which obviously would not have existed contemporaneously. Ideally it would have a section somewhere with cited English translations of each unique style. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am creating a new page for Martin Roll which I see you have previously been involved in editing. Can you take a look

Tobias Tan (talk)

So who is paying you to create these articles? Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, this debate at the NPOV noticeboard appears to have run its course. if you could render an opinion when you get a chance it'd be greatly appreciated. thanks!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosurewikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergencywikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 16:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure@wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency@wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure@wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency@wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)'

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation -- 17:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to look into deleting/suppressing some of their edits. I don't know if posting a publicly available address is a problem but some of the links posted probably are. Hydromania (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of these are probably best to just get rid of. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fast work! Hydromania (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missed you before you left. No, there hasn't been one. That said, I can't really look into it as I consider myself involved in that topic area. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind my collapsing of your comments in the recent AN thread. Couldn't figure a way to selectively exclude them, and the lengthy conversation had a good chance of derailing the whole discussion. Please feel free to implement an alternate approach to the one I took. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all, don't worry about it - I actually think it looks better that way. It proved to be a futile endeavor, regardless. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But i thought since the family agreed everything is Okay, they gave me the right to do so and again currently the book is currently been proceed to a physical copy, soon we are publishing a physical copy for this book with a publisher, "will it still be a problem"? after we did this because we are launching it on the 7th and again, It's not only me, I am with the family of the deceased rapper?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovis47 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright man, thanks I understand, I guess i will have to wait until this publish by a publisher and for you to confirm the content and etc. But thanks for explaining, I will get back to you to review it after the launch probably on 7th July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovis47 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me answer my question! You were quick to respond and very helpful, so I just wanted to thank you again. Bsoyka✉ 05:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floating table header still not working.hydnjo (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi. Yeah i have a doubt that y all the article i created was deleted.. i wanna know its because the citation.Without citation i cant create an article or what ..Please do help me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Ryan07 (talk • contribs)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Wikipedia article about Cardiff Bay and noticed it was semi-protected, which made very little sense in my opinion for an article about a non-controversial relatively low-profile development. You had indefinitely protected it following a handful of cases relating to minor spam in 2013, none of which were particularly disrupting to the content, and were mostly by IPs that most likely belonged people who worked there attempting to promote the place. The one user whose edit was reverted (by you) has since been blocked.

In reality this type of vandalism by IPs and new users may be more of a contender for Pending Changes protection rather than Semi Protection unless users were , and as far as I know it's against the current Wikipedia policy for a page to be indefinitely semi-protected the first time around in most cases (it had never been protected before). Therefore I am requesting if the protection on this article could be removed after 6 years or at least downgraded to Pending Changes protection?

Gourleyo (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, that was from quite a bit ago. I just completely removed the protection from the page. We'll see what happens, hopefully it's not needed anymore. I had placed permanent semi on it since I think literally every anonymous and unconfirmed edit for over a year prior to that was spam or vandalism, and the page had almost zero watchers. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back - I thought you had been absent or something since you hadn't commented on any talk page posts since April. I was on an A-Level (a UK qualification) Geography trip here yesterday to do some fieldwork and checked this page out in advance, which caused me to notice it was semi protected. The vast majority of semi-protected pages are either about high profile or controversial topics but this was about neither which was why I requested the protection to be removed. Out of curiosity, given your comment, did you originally intend to remove it after a few months and forgot? I have no issue if that was the case but would suggest you comply with the protection policy properly in future. I think a few years ago that protection could often be applied indefinitely and was then supposed to be removed after a while once the article was non-controversial/topical, but I understand that admins could forget about articles, especially lower profile ones.

I would suggest that if IP vandalism continues on a regular basis that it is placed under Pending Changes protection, though hopefully it will not be needed.

Gourleyo (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At ticket:2019061010007982 you performed WP:Identity verification.

So far as I know, we have no process or documentation for this practice. I am not sure where the practice came from or how anyone is supposed to do it correctly. What do you know about this?

If you become aware of more such cases, can you assist me in listing them? I have a few at Wikipedia_talk:Identity_verification#Cases. I eventually would like to establish some norms for this. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: it is also my understanding that we have no process or documentation for this. I think I saw somewhere on an OTRS help page an explicit statement that there was no consensus on how identity verification should happen. My current practice is simply an imitation of what I saw other OTRS agents doing when I first joined the team. Aside from the accounts that are currently marked with the verified template, I can't recall other accounts I have verified, but if I come across them I'll let you know. If there is anything else I could do to help, let me know. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a head's up : The guy who renamed Theta Persei seems to have created a new account to get around your ban. ApLundell (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was, wondering if I was being unreasonable in my assumption that he had no intention of learning. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9::/48 You blocked them once before, and there's a backlog at AIV. I have no idea why someone cares about this. Russian hack? Thanks Hydromania (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Another admin took care of it. Hydromania (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. Yeah, someone else blocked the new IP. I went and blocked the range again since I see almost every edit on the range since the block lifted has been him vandalizing stuff. There's maybe one other person using the range. Yeah, weird. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted,this is send by my google email.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCC214, I'm honestly not trying to ignore you or anything. It's been a busy few days and I keep forgetting to look at this when I'm actually able to. Because I'm bad at computer, I cannot access my email right now, but if you post the two usernames here I can send you the info. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need all content with User talk:Purpleheena and User talk:-忍者- ,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221 I am Looking to be Adopted on Wikipedia I left a little bio on user page about why I am askingJack90s15 (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack90s15. It looks like another user has adopted you. But you can feel free to ask me any questions, if you want to. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Someguy1221 for saying I still can come to you!!!

hello there, I saw your comment under my report on the false positive/report page. I appreciate you for taking your time resolving my problems. Firstly of all, I am paid by the company to create the wikipedia page for them. The company is different from the one called TravelSky which was already in Wikipedia. What I was trying to do is to create a new page called Hangzhou Travelsky( or Hanghou Travelsky Co., Ltd if possible) and add a redirect option for any search involving the keyword "travelsky". Also, I understand that I cannot write article in all capitalized letters. What I was struggling with was that I could not find a way to secure my edit. So I took chance and published the draft. if you can show me a handy way to save my progress, I'd love to submit a quality article and save your time. And for my last question, the unfinished page has been tagged as speedy deletion, does that mean I have to contest after the page is finished in order to have someone looking at it? Or do I just submit it as usual. Thank you again for helping me.Hzxzhang (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hzxzhang. I'm going to give you the same advice I actually give everyone, as I think it is the correct way to start an article. First, just forget about everything you already wrote. In fact, forget everything you know about your company. Seriously. For the most part, Wikipedia doesn't really care what a company has to say about itself. It doesn't care about advertisements, or official websites, or press releases, or other announcements. An article will have a link to the official website, and readers will go there if they want to know what's on it - we don't need to recreate it on the Wikipedia article. Rather, Wikipedia cares what other people have written about the company. Not just any other people, but those writing for independent reliable sources. What you should do is look for reliable sources, which could be books, magazines or newspapers articles (online or in print), and collect those you can find. Try to write a draft only using those sources. See what the article looks like. Once that's done, you can consider using the company's official website as a source for filling in very minor details, but it cannot be the basis of large parts of the article. Please keep in mind that not everything published in a book/newspaper/magazine is necessarily an independent reliable source. Press releases, interviews, advertisements, and anything written or published by someone with a financial relationship to TravelSky will probably not be considered independent. Outlets whose authors do not sign their work, that accept user submissions, or do not have editorial review, will probably not be considered reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a good point. New Mexico doesn't get a top-level code, but it would create confusion since Marianas gets both a top-level code and a US-subdivision code, and US-NM is indeed already taken. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for this happy comment. I suspect that you made a lot of people smile today. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you found this vid. Much appreciated. אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for trying to be among the rational voices there. Re the lighthouse moves the "almost two hundred articles on lighthouses" was a miscount, I'm pretty sure. My count was 101, which may also not be exact. As with the campaign moves of similar numbers, these were done carefully, checking sources for evidence of treatment as proper names. The much later (this May) mass capitalization of 300 lighthouse articles was the real problem in that space, and I would intend to get around to a big RM discussion about that eventually. User:Sam Sailor who did that has disappeared; I thought it best to wait for him to be back, but who knows. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real problem is that people latched on to what Marcus said, and were willing to burn me without evidence. Any advice from you would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man - I was enjoying the back and forth on the CST Talk page, but it was for sure going off-topic. I thought I'd userify the last comment here if you felt like continuing, if not no big deal. I'm not sure if it was just me that thought the discussion was interesting, if it was sorry to frustrate you and don't feel like you need to respond. - Scarpy (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

forked from "medicine (Baltimore)" thread[edit]

Here's a story where CST could "work" as in have therapeutic value although not necessarily for what is asserted to be treating or for the reasons why it's asserted to work. This is all hypothetical and I have no evidence to support it, it's just imagining what a universe might look like where CST practitioners stumbled on to something novel.

The discussions here about CST in NICUs reminded me a bit of other discussions I've heard surrounding Psychosocial short stature and it made me think that perhaps some of the asserted benefit in NICUS was derived from the extra touching the infants received from the CST practitioners. This made me think, to quote my internal dialogue "being held is obviously important, but maybe there's something like a 'spectrum of therapeutic touch' to correct for psychosocial deprivation? And maybe if that spectrum is on a scale of 1 to 10 being held by your mother or father is like a 9 but a gentle scalp message is like a 7 or 8? So if it works in a cumulative way it could help an awful lot even if it's not mom or dad, who maybe can't be there all the time. And maybe if there is something like a ranking of therapeutic touch to reduce psychosocial deprivation, you see some benefits of CST in adults too for that reason. Maybe a normal massage is like 6, but a scalp massage is like a 7.5 so it's better in a way?"

Just to repeat, that's all a hypothetical. But if 40 years from now something like CST could "evolve" the same way meditation and yoga did where there's something like a winnowing down of CST to immediately useful, quantifiable and recognizable bits, it could look something like that... I also realize I'm treading a bit on WP:FORUM here, apologies for that if anyone wants to stop this thread, you won't hurt my feelings. - Scarpy (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't aware when writing above that the term Therapeutic touch was already taken (Googled out of curiosity after I saved and was like 'Ohh...'). I meant it above in a general sense, not a reference the practice that currently exists. - Scarpy (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's absolutely possible that a benefit of some kind exists if the alternative is doing nothing. Consider acupuncture, where even well conducted trials consistently find that patients report feeling better for a time after treatment, although the same benefit is seen in sham controls. That is, it doesn't matter where the needles are placed, or whether they even break the skin, but allowing the patient to believe they are being treated makes them feel better. This is even found in sham knee surgery, where simply making an incision and then stitching it up without doing anything can result in the patient reporting reduced pain in the knee, as long as they are ignorant to what actually happened.

Human contact is important, even for babies. Getting attention, being near other people, and feeling that concerns are being validated and treatment attempted can provide tremendous comfort, and this can translate to measurable health outcomes in the long term. With regard to most alt-med, however, this presents a deep ethical dilemma: The plausible effectiveness is premised entirely on deception, and the practitioners are usually requesting payment in return. A typical response to this concern is, "If it works, who cares why?" Well, there are a couple of big reasons to care.

The first is that unless a patient is being treated for a want of comfort, they are being deceived into thinking they have been treated for something else. As I had mentioned previously, asthmatics receiving alt-med feel less need to use their inhaler, even though they are exactly as sick as before, meaning this deception can have severely negative health consequences. The second reason is that it is not a choice between fake treatment and no treatment. It is entirely possible to treat people who feel their problems are being ignored without lying to them. Group therapy, counseling, pain management, massage, etc. There are a lot of options for providing the same benefits that come from being tricked.

It's certainly true that medical treatment affordability is kind of shit in some places, and the US is particularly terrible in terms of mental health treatment, but I don't see legalized fraud being a great solution to that. At the end of the day you still wind up with a fundamental problem in the psychology of the people who practice this type of stuff: They are self-evidently more interested in profit than they are in proving their treatments work. As someone who has read many, many clinical trials of alt-med practices, it is uncanny how often the poor quality seems to be a deliberate choice. And any time a large meta-analysis comes around to definitively state that treatment X has no measurable benefit for condition Y, the practitioners either make a subtle change to the treatment, or apply the same treatment to a new condition; after which they insist that more research needs to be done.

For as long as this is the mindset of a profession, it will not evolve meaningfully, because their is no desire to evolve. There is no desire to improve. The people who take part either don't really understand how to do science, or they do, and deliberately design studies to avoid having to risk their paychecks. The incentives are perverse to begin with. A physician will still have a job if the standard of care for some disorder changes, but for someone whose entire profession is a one-trick-pony...

We can look at how this went for medicine itself. The evolution from physicians making it up as they went along, learning by experience, and passing along knowledge institutionally; to having actual medical standards; was a long and painful one. Some doctors had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the era where uncontrolled anecdotal evidence justified damn near everything. And there was a sick reason for this, as revealed in the Flexner Report. Bad medicine is cheaper. Learning is expensive. The doctor without qualms about deceiving his patients can not only learn his trade more quickly and at less cost, he can also undercut the prices of any physician offering real medicine.

Probably most of those doctors meant well, but to repeat my quote of Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" In addition to motivational biases inherent there, any doctor being told that he has not been helping his patients is going to potentially demonstrate the backfire effect, being unwilling to admit he did anything wrong. Anyway, the arrival of evidence-based medicine and the scholarly rejection of scientifically implausible medical treatments did not make them go away, simply because being a fraudster was profitable, and too many patients could not tell the difference. The bad practices did not reform or disappear until they were forced to.

Back to CST finally, agreed, it is possible that many babies could do well with more skin-skin contact, and maybe they are genuinely receiving a health benefit, rather than just a vicarious placebo on the parents/nurses/doctors. But if it is possible for NICU CST treatment to evolve, that evolution is not going to happen through the work of CST practitioners, because their goal is to justify what they are already doing, not to find out if it works. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. The incentive argument is a good one. There's not much of an incentive for CST to evolve. Meditation, I believe started getting there when meditators decided to get neuroscience degrees and do research on longtime meditators, those kinds of things. Yoga I believe was able to respond to market incentives, but there was some amount of alignment there. That's probably unlikely with CST for the reasons you mentioned. Not sure if you say this, but link to a somewhat related discussion here: User_talk:Guy_Macon/Yes._We_are_biased.#Comments_on_tone,_content_and_purpose_here. - Scarpy (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At his own request, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 for his long history of service to the functionary team.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to Oversight team

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Metaprotege (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was just looking at your userpage, and noticed you still have the userbox that says you are an oversighter. I hit the 'verify ' link because I was pretty sure you requested removal and it came up that you weren't an oversighter. Just a note that the box might cause a little confusion, it isn't major. Anyway, just thought I'd ask if you were aware of this. Thanks! Puddleglum ^2.0 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm Jeff6045. I want to ask your help for dispute on the article about 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. The user Koraskadi is keep adding the same unconstructive contents in this article even though I had warned this user for several times and explained the reason why I had reverted this user's edit. Also this user had added NPOV caution on the article. I don't think this is an issue for WP:NPOV because this user's has added contents based on WP:OR. Since you have much more experience on WP can you help and advice me to solve this problem? Thank you for reading! Jeff6045 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him again for 48 hours, which is generally what I do if an editor's first edit after a block for edit warring is to jump back into the exact same edit war. If he continues the same edit war upon the expiration of this one you can contact me again, or report at WP:AN3. Given that he's been reverted by two editors, and none of the other active editors on that page seem interested in his contributions, I don't think there is anything else that you need to do. If Koraskadi wishes to discuss without edit warring I could have more advice, but I don't think it is necessary at this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221:Thank you very much! I really appreciate your effort on this.Jeff6045 (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are restored.

In addition, NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) has voluntarily relinquished the CheckUser permission. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks NativeForeigner for his long service as a CheckUser and functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to functionary team

FYSA, good call on keeping Adventurer's Guild back in 2007. I added a couple of articles from the out-of-print Paper Mayhem magazine to help out. Thought you might be interested, so I circled back to let you know! Airborne84 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment. You seem to say that on a topic we should first find sources that attempt a broad overview and then use them to determine weight? Here's an example. Consider the article Rape in Islamic law. There are two broad-based scholarly sources on this:

• Sexual Violation in Islamic Law, Cambridge University Press
• Rape: A Problem of Crime Classification in Islamic Law, Arab Law Quarterly

Neither of these sources says anything about abortion, yet the article devotes 10% of words to Rape_in_Islamic_law#Abortion_due_to_rape. The article devotes a whopping 25% to Rape_in_Islamic_law#Marital_rape yet both of the sources give less 2% of material to topic of marital rape (the 230 page book devotes only half a page the 21 page journal article only gives two sentences).

So would I be justified in concluding there is undue weight? Is there something I'm missing in my analysis?VR _talk 03:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the only potential flaw is assuming that these two sources are representative of the whole field. I have not studied this topic and could not offer an opinion of whether that is the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we use only use broad sources to determine weight? For example there are sources specifically on the topic of abortion after rape in Islam ([17][18]) and similarly focused on marital rape in Islam ([19][20]). But how do you determine weight from such a focused sources?

Or do you mean that weight should only be determined from broad sources, but there might be more broad sources than just the two that I listed in the 03:10, 2 January comment.VR _talk 16:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to only determine weight from broad sources if enough are available, and from authors with sufficient prominence, to gauge the overall consensus of the relevant scholarly community. Consider really any article on a very broad topic, for which there is so much that could be written about it, Wikipedia cannot even summarize every subtopic in the main article. For such a topic, broad sources are helpful and answering the question, "What issues cannot be ignored when discussing ____ in even a broad sense?" The less relevant subtopics are not ignored - they still get mentioned, possibly even have their own articles, they just have little to no weight at the top level article.

But back to this specific article you are referring to. If consensus is that the available or cited broad sources are insufficient for determining how to distribute weight across an article, focused sources cannot be used by themselves to determine weight. There would need to be some kind of assessment of the importance of the individual subtopics to the overarching topic. Alternatives could include the apparent portion of scholarly literature on the whole topic that is about the subtopic. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, I think they are helpful. Should these proposed as additions to WP:WEIGHT? I'm referring to the idea that if there exist sufficient broad sources on a topic, only these sources should be used to determine the weight of subtopics in the article about the topic.

I also have a follow up question. If no broad sources exist on a topic, is it true that the topic might be WP:SYNTH and the article should be split until there exist broad sources for it?VR _talk 21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.

In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to functionary team

Hi, your name is listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks under "Temporarily inactive clerks", and I noticed you haven't been active at SPI for some time. Do you think you would eventually like to return to clerking one day? If not, that's okay too, and I can remove your name from the list of clerks. Thanks for all the work you've done as a clerk! Sro23 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent inactivity, I hope all is well. I was reading your user page and contemplated how it's still relevant right now, i.e. section 3.3-3.4. Thanks for that, and I hope to see you around again on WP, —PaleoNeonate – 07:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The article List of Water Rats characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Containment zone for plot trivia and non-notable characters, fails WP:NLIST.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

After I reviewed this block, I double-checked the ranges; it looks like the disruption can be contained with a slightly smaller (/17) range, which I've done here, and I've unblocked the larger /16 range. Let me know if you have any concerns about that. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Someguy1221,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Someguy1221, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]