User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 17

Inactive at SPI
Considering that you do about 75% of the clerking work, I saw your recent move to inactive status and thought something along the lines of AaaA A a A AAaaaaA A aaaA!

Hope everything's alright. Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It.. well, it's complicated. But a little time away from SPI (and perhaps Wiki as a whole) might be a good idea. If you're ever on IRC, find me and I'll tell you more. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear, i'll see what I can pick up, but your efforts are truly beyond appreciated. You handle cases that some days I don't even want to touch. In the meantime i'll try and keep up with your talkpage efforts, and still hit SPI enough. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, DQ. Keep rocking on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just adding my thanks here as well. I appreciate the good work and effort you've put in at SPI and I hope your break goes well. NULL (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you
RE: Sockpuppet_investigations/NickBrunson

Thank you for your hard work Calendar2 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive
Looks like I edited the Archive by mistake to add Brucerman. Sopher99 also made some additions. What is the best way for me to fix this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting Ridiculous
I Have REALLY had it with ChronicalUsual and His sock accounts.

User:Brucerman, User:TristanBogard, User:Sobarmako, User:Idigm, User:Igolahi, User:Misstock, User:ImpossibleBehavior, User:Bilasmatic, User:Hepmonton, User:SawYouThere, User:Blinderarg and User:Vlzibstcic are all the same people. They are all User:ChronicalUsual. All were created after March 1 when Chronical was banned. They all target individual and separate pages of the Syrian uprising in a biased manner to express the same POV chronical had. Chronical publicly admitted he was going to continue creating accounts to express his POV.

Those are just the ones I know about, I assume there are countless more. Sopher99 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Homs&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_National_Council&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011–2012_Idlib_Governorate_clashes&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011–2012_Syrian_uprising_(from_January_2012)&action=history

Sopher99 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a break from sockpuppet cases. Open a case there and someone else will deal with it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and protected by the time I got here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lahore IP disrupting Statistics, Statistician (probably mathematician and mathematics) again
Page protections are needed again. The IPs and a new user have revived the automaton-like editing of Statistics and Statistician. Thanks, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ducky behavior from a new editor
Hey, can you run a CheckUser on AgAzaw? I suspect, based on the characteristic usage of bare refs and (French) far-left media sources, as well as apparent POV bias in favor of the formerly pro-Gaddafi Tuaregs and single-purpose editing of a page to which User:ChronicalUsual contributed, that our esteemed friend is back. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:RomanceBad as well. Very ducky. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not a checkuser, so no, I can't run this for you. And secondly, I'm taking a break from clerking for now. If you want this looked at, open a case over at SPI. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme ‎ is back again
Hi HelloAnnyong, as you seem to have some knowledge of this users behaviour would you please take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Ledenierhomme. It seems as though know one has looked at the current case, Ledenierhomme is now going by the name "User:GAYousefSaanei". Turco  85 ( Talk ) 01:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not actively clerking right now, so just sit tight and one of the active clerks will handle the case accordingly. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Highstakes00
Has asked to be unblocked and appears to have agreed to the suggested conditions, but latest request has gone unanswered. Would you be happy for me to unblock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Feedback
Hello HelloAnnyong,

I’m on the public relations team for Websense, Inc. I’m writing you today to ask for your further assistance in organizing and clarifying the Websense Wikipedia page.

As you know, recently there was a bit of an edit war between two users that dramatically changed the content of the page. As far as we are aware neither of those participants works for or is affiliated with Websense.

The problem with the current content is that it does not accurately reflect our business. I’d like your feedback on how to correct factual errors or omissions. The one time we tried to use an account to make changes under the user name Websense, Inc. we were told it was not acceptable to use a corporate moniker.

There are two issues that might be helpful background for you:

1.	The business that Websense is in has evolved over the years. Phase one was “web filtering” or blocking access to certain sites. Put simply, for most customers that was “porn filtering”. Customers bought to stay compliant with HR rules and laws about respectful work environments. Phase two was about productivity. Companies bought advanced filtering to keep employees from wasting all day doing things like online gambling or social media. They could be blocked completely, allocated quote time, or set to certain hours (like lunch break). The current emphasis is all about security. All of those data breaches you read about? They usually start with targeted emails, get people to an infected website, download malicious code, and start sending confidential data out, usually for profit. Websense is all about keeping that whole chain (email security, web security, data loss prevention) from occurring. 2.	There are people who equate categorization and customer filtering with censorship and want to brand Websense as a censorship company. Be clear about this: we categorize sites and content (that’s porn, that’s gambling, that’s shopping, that’s hate speech, that’s religious, that’s sports, etc.-there are over 90 categories), and our customers choose what to block, allow, or limit. Companies have an absolute right—and sometimes even a legal responsibility—to block certain content. That is not censorship. And we work diligently to prevent misuse of our technology. For example, we worked with the ACLU to help schools realize that students should not be blocked from LGBT sites. And we will not sell to governments that would use our products for censorship (we have a record of remotely disabling misused product and for not bidding for or accepting business meant for censorship). When we get a chance to explain this to activists they often become fans. But many activists are so zealous that they neither research nor listen. These are the sorts of people who have been wreaking havoc with the Websense Wikipedia entry.

It is not our intent to make the entry a marketing piece, nor shy away from documented controversy. We’d like to supply omitted content and correct factual errors. Can you please advise in how we can work with you to better clean up the page under Wikipedia guidelines?

For example, is there a way we can supply content to an editor or WikiFairie to have them determine how to make the changes?

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I look forward to working with you through the Wikipedia process for getting the article cleaned up.

Best regards, Patricia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogan83 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, you have a heavy conflict of interest with WebSense, so really you shouldn't edit the article at all. And getting other editors to edit on your behalf is also severely frowned upon. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and that the content there is supposed to be neutral.
 * You can post on the Websense talk page and try to discuss it with the editors. This is a collaborative environment, so you're supposed to be discussing proposed changes, not saying "Well, this is how we operate, so everyone else is wrong." And your content must be well sourced - your edits don't get carte blanche just because you work for the company. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

More of the same vandalism
From one of the same IP addresses, after the previous block ended. Here are the diffs: and. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dealt with. HA if this editor is a sock, which even with finding the last thread about this, feel free to extend the block for a good while, I just wasn't going to jump the gun on it, but he's stopped for 72 hours even if his last edit was several days ago. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much DQ. Given the person's history of IP-hopping, perhaps you might consider semi-protecting those two pages for a while as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually when it comes to these types of incidents, i'm very liberal with protecting pages, but i'm not sure that it will achieve our goal since this is the first case on both pages that this is happened. I'm inclined to hear your opinion out though. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm fine with leaving the decision to all of you highly-paid admins :-) But, per my answer to Alison just below, there's an awful lot of persistence from this individual, and they do move from one IP to another, as well as from one page to another. By the way, should I still be posting all of this here, as opposed to ANI or somewhere else? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Above your pay-grade, eh? :P Well ya, if he comes back to any of those pages, do let us know. Actually because of what the diffs contain, it's best to email oversight directly at and they will respond within minutes with them oversighted. It also saves you anyone finding out the info behind those revisions. I know HA is a bit busy these days, so if you forward that off to oversight when it happens, and drop me an email or a talkpage message, I check around quite a bit, most of the time I just don't edit, but do so and I'll block him the moment i'm on. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't really around yesterday. Should be good from here on out, I hope.. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've suppressed those now, per policy. Let me know if you find any more - A l is o n  ❤ 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, there's a lot more where those came from. I hope I'm not leaving anything out, and I don't think there was anything prior to December 10, but the pages with other such edit summaries are Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Mirror neuron, Mirror box (all with multiple such edits), and Phantom limb and The Science Network (one each). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 more revisions sent to oversight, bringing the total to 16 revisions, I think I got them all shipped off. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks all around, and understood about OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many people are camping out on my talk page... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry
Hi. I want to ask you for help. I noticed this edit of User:Peacemaker67 and after I reverted an obviously inaccurate edit (there is no evidence that term "Nedić regime" was used as a name for territory) I checked edits of User:Peacemaker67 and I concluded that edits and views of this user are extremely similar to those of User:DIREKTOR. Furthermore, my view is shared by other two users, please see this and this. I saw that you was involved in this case (per link that User:FkpCascais sent to me), and I think that you should check is User:Peacemaker67 a sockpuppet of User:DIREKTOR - there is notable amount of similar topics of interest and views shared by these two accounts. Furthermore, User:Peacemaker67 claims to live in Australia, so if checkuser shows that he lives in Croatia, we will have an evidence of disruption. Also note that User:DIREKTOR has a history of disruptive behaviour and topic ban from all Balkans articles and talkpages was imposed on him by an admin (see evidence here on the bottom of the page: ). Ban was later lifted because of procedural mistake of the admin, but evidence about history of disruptive behavior in the past is clearly here. PANONIAN 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clerking right now. If you think you have enough evidence, open a case and one of the other clerks will deal with it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that some clerk please do this check? I am very happy for it to occur because the result will force the involved editors to actually bring some sources instead of wasting everyone's time with this nonsense! Could you refer it to someone else? Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, you should note that PANONIAN has decided to try and block User:Peacemaker67 only after noticing this thread, in which Peacemaker has stated he might oppose PANONIAN's position in a dispute. He has also essentially canvassed User:FkpCascais to support this attempt. Both he and FkpCascais fundamentally misunderstand the SPI process, and the only "evidence" they think they have is me and Peacemaker occasionally agreeing on an issue or two. The same thing (basically an "alternative" to sources and discussion) was attempted previously by FkpCascais himself, was rejected, and the user eventually got topic-banned for WP:FORUMSHOPPING. So that's the background you're probably missing. -- Director  ( talk )  21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This conversation is over. If you guys want to argue and accuse each other of whatever, go ahead - but not on my talk page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I couldn't resist. Goodness knows I tried :). Cheers -- Director  ( talk )  22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of SkagitRiverQueen / LHB1239
User Blue Marble Egg is a suspected sockpuppet of SkagitRiverQueen / LHB1239 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pony Express (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why that SPI is sitting there, rotting in the middle of the backlog. This is SRQ, and if CU can't tie Lhb1239 to Blue Marble Egg, there is still no other logical conclusion as to who this editor is. Any day now, folks... Doc   talk  00:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not currently clerking. One of the other clerks will get to it when they have time. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gothca. I just thought that closing a quacker would help, in some small way, with the backlog of cases that are far less obvious. Due process... ;P Doc   talk  02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Websense
Hello. Can we call off the calvalry now please? The blocking of this article is an inappropriate over-reaction to a fishing expedition that turned out empty-handed. I believe there are enough grown ups around to keep an eye on it for COI without special protection. Thanks Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HelloAnnyong/sockblock.js
Could you please consider wrapping this script in  and    tags? It is showing up in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of "+masterName+". — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just tried that, but that just makes the whole script not work. I think Tim Canens' fix did the trick. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to use , you'll have to put it in JS comments so that it is still legal javascript... :) T. Canens (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, huh, that's weird. Done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you help with a quick translation?
Hi, HelloAnnyong. :)

I'm sorry to drop in on you with such short notice, but I'm hoping you can give me a quick hand. The Wikimedia Foundation wants to announce the new Terms of Use and would like to make the announcement to the Japanese language projects in Japanese. We've got a translation of the Terms themselves (meta:Terms_of_use/ja), but I need to get two sentences translated from English into Japanese as quickly as possible. Since we've collaborated before as volunteers, when I saw your name on the list of available translators it seemed like a good idea to stop by and ask if you could assist. :D

The sentences are:
 * Our updated Terms of Use will become effective on May 20th, 2012. Find out more.

There are a few complications. First, we are hoping to get this out in time that we can put the new TOU into effect on May 15, so I would need a translation for that as well. For most languages, I can easily just substitute. Maybe I can do that with Japanese as well? I don't actually know how they handle numbers in Japanese.

Second, I need to be able to wikilink "Terms of Use" and "Find out more". I guess I'll be able to find "Find out more", since it's a separate sentence. I don't know if I'll be able to recognize "Terms of Use". If you can help with translation, I'd need to ask you to let me know which words those are. :)

If you don't have time, or would prefer not to, please just let me know, and I'll track down somebody else. I have a very short deadline on this and am scurrying about kind of frantically trying to find people to help on such short notice. :)

Hope all is well with you! --Moonriddengirl/Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Well, I can tell you "Terms of use" is 利用規約. For "Our updated Terms of Use will become effective on May 20th, 2012." I'd say something like 本利用規約の最新版は２０１２年５月２０日から有効です. and for "Find out more" I'd say 詳細をご覧ください.  To be honest, I don't really feel confident enough in my ability to generate official Wikimedia text, so at the very least I'd like an actual native speaker to look that over. Hopefully that helps...? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Thank you very much. :) I'll ask a native speaker to look it over, but it's not quite as heavy-weight as all that. It's just the language that we'll use to let the communities know about the update. But I do understand; translation can be very tricky. We got a professional translation of the Terms of Use in some languages, and the natives of one of them said that the professionals had gotten several concepts seriously wrong. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's disappointing. Let me know if you need any other help. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone
Hello Hello (always wanted to type that .. but I suppose you've heard that MANY times). Anyway, I followed a link from an ANI discussion which led me to the Silverstone article and its talk page. Looking at the editing I was half tempted to fully protect the article for a bit and let discussion on the talk determine what should and should not be in the lede (and elsewhere). The problem is that I'd likely protect the wrong version. I noticed that back in 2010 you were active with that article, but didn't know if you still were. I was wondering if there was anything I could do to help there? — Ched : ?  18:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the time it took to type that to you, there was yet more change/reverting going on. I've fully protected the article for a week.  Feel free to lift, change, or modify as you see fit.  I figure you're more knowledgeable about both the situation and the topic.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  18:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be returning to work on the article at some point. I hope you'll weigh in on the many problems with the article brought up on the talk page. I'll probably just take all the open issues to the appropriate noticeboards perhaps after writing a quick summary of them to help editors make sense of the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You did agree not to edit that article again, and were blocked a week for edit warring and arguing and distorting things because of it. HelloAnnyong, please read the response to his comment he posted right after this one on someone else's page, trying to distort things. User_talk:Ched_Davis   D r e a m Focus  19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, uhh... I lost track of what was going on on there, but I definitely know that everyone involved in that article needs to take a step back and calm down. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure when and how to return to working on this article. My thoughts currently are to summarize all the policy violations, and take them to the appropriate noticeboards given the lack of progress on the talk page.

It looks like both Vamps (film) and Butter (2011 film) will be released in October. If we're lucky, someone will publish a useful and updated biography in the same time frame that could be used as a source. If nothing else, there will be press on her. It would be nice to have the article cleaned up prior, but it should at least create some interest in cleaning it up as the press rolls out.

Your perspective would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Opening up that many cases would be a lot of wikilawyering, I would think. I get what you're going for, but that'd be a pretty big pile-up. The article's been kinda quiet as of late, so maybe it'd be better to let things lie? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd hoped for one or two noticeboard reports total, probably just to BLP, and delineate the various problems.
 * As I see it right now, there are violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTDIARY, and of course WP:BLP.
 * "so maybe it'd be better to let things lie?" Why? We're here to improve this encyclopedia.
 * Like I said, we should be getting a lot more interest in the article come October. If the problems aren't addressed, they'll get worse when others come to the article and follow the examples of all the problems there. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Peck
Hi. Can you please unprotect that page? I want to create it. --emijrp (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Peck (1947 - 1996) was an American actor.

Sockpuppets
Please address this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive#May_3

Sopher99 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm currently not clerking right now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

the Syrian uprising (2011-present) page
The active users who edit the page have came to a unanimous consensus on its talk page that the page and its talk should be protected. Please add the protection template if you could. Sopher99 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)#RFP_.3F
 * No... that's not how protection works. We don't declare an article "done" and then protect it for all time. The article stays unprotected until such time that there is justification to protect, e.g. vandalism. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does vandalism by sockpuppets as we speak count? Sopher99 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sopher99 is insulting me because I added the fact that Islamists were a component of the opposition. I don't know what the problem is. I even tried to talk him on the page and finally discovered he went there. A quick look of the page talk showed that he is a very biased user himself involved in a lot of conflicts and definitely biased for the opposition. Are personnal beliefs allowed to take over sourced content on the page?--Klavisioni (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry sockpuppet of ChronicalUsual, I am a nice guy when you get to know me. Sopher99 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're both violating 3RR, and I will issue blocks if it continues. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The guys over at the 3RV noticeboard told me that reverting actions of suspected socks is tolerated. This same scenario happened before with he same puppetmaster. Sopher99 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Has it been confirmed that that guy is a sockpuppet? Have you opened a case at SPI about it? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive&action=history SOme guy moved the case 10 minutes ago, but yes. Sopher99 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles back
And running amok. Could you check him out, please? FactStraight (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Shouldn't User:Beefcake6412 have a blocked template on his user page? I'm going to place one there. Feel free to remove it if I am incorrect in doing so.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Found and added templates to a few others that had missed being tagged from this list of blocked puppets as well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, sure. That's fine. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible paid advocacy/socking
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bovlb (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bovlb (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

JSHint
Hey dude. I've declined the speedy here; first, it really doesn't match the article that was AfDd. Second, the AfDd article was never deleted as a result of a discussion - it was G7d and the AfD NACd. Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'strue. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

JSHint and notability
Getting annoyed by this nonsense about 'notability' for an entry about software distributed on the internet. The sources are ALWAYS going to be blogs, the site where the software is distributed, and suchlike. What else do you expect?

Besides in the RS article the possible sources of notability are listed as:
 * 1) the piece of work itself (the article, book), - TICK - that would be the site where the software is hosted and distributed
 * 2) the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), - TICK - the author's blog
 * 3) and the publisher of the work - TICK - that would be the site where the software is hosted and distributed

What on earth is missing? Don't tell me it's not notable because it's not printed on dead tree because that would be utterly ridicolous coming from an ONLINE encyclopedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The type of sources that you listed can be RELIABLE sources (meaning they can be used as references) but they DON'T ESTABLISH NOTABILITY. Independent (and reliable) sources are needed to establish notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotofritz, you misread the reliable source criteria. Those three points don't mean that those sorts of things are reliable sources - they only affect how reliable a source is. For example, a source written by the author of JSHint would be unacceptable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the guy who declined the speedy - what HelloAnnyong said. Sources must be reliable, independent and published by third-parties; the criteria you've quoted are for evaluating whether a source is reliable. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. But still - we are talking, ultimately, about code on github. Pointing to the code itself, and the site that discusses it, should be enough for an entry, at least an initial one. By all means, ask for more notable source and keep improving the article, but to mark the entry for deletion seems unreasonable in this context. It would be different if it was someone's bio, or an entry about a political party or something, but with open source software one can link directly to the thing itself. Gotofritz (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but notability is not about ease of access, it's about supporting our pledge to build a verifiable encyclopedia; an encyclopedia built of content that can be trusted. Part of this is ensuring that articles meet at least a basic check of "can this content be relied on y/n", and primary sources are, as a general rule, not acceptable - they're too easy for the subject to manipulate and screw with. I appreciate this may sound somewhat illogical for a piece of code :S. Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * " I appreciate this may sound somewhat illogical for a piece of code :S" Yes it does. It sounds incredibly pedantic. What can one do about it? Gotofritz (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up.
Hi again, could you have a look at this report here as you have had more experience with this editor, than most Admin's so you would be aware of the editing pattern. Will cut out a lot of the nonsense, and a CU might uncover a couple of more. Thanks in advance, -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC
In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail call
I've dropped you an email, asking for a little advice.  Worm TT( talk ) 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Templar98

 * - Special:Contributions/Templar98 - as the blocking admin - User talk:178.197.254.3 - Special:Contributions/178.197.254.3 - this account seems very familiar - You  really  can  17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

unblock|Your reason here, am I still blocked?}
unblock|Your reason here Am i still blocked?} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialinn (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

New user - suspected sock of banned member
I suspect the new user User:Madvirgin is a sock of earlier banned user User:Arfaz and User:DdraconiandevilL. He is new member but his edits look like experienced user and resemble the style of the two above mentioned accounts. Anish Viswa  06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cracker92 and ANI
Can you please comment here? In my view, we need some more authoritative comments on both the policy and any applicable technical issues. I just made a very stern comment in the thread that sounds more confident than I actually feel. :-) If you think I should direct this request to someone else, please let me know who. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Robatayaki
Hello HelloAnnyong,

I've created a new article Robatayaki, a topic on which my knowledge is confined to what I found by Google search. Could you please review and improve it, for example by using ja:炉端焼き? Thanks in advance. --Lambiam 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Man of Steel / Fellowship of the ring
Yes it was trivial but doesn't he get credit for it? 67.82.240.113 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

yes it was trivial but didn't shore get credit for it?

Farhadpersia (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter - it's still trivial to mention every single time a piece of music gets reused. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Category nomination
Hi, when you have a moment could you look at this? I doubt others will comment on the nomination as it's not your usual category nomination, and I'd like someone with more expertise than I have to review it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your range contribution tool
shows 6 edits on my PC, trimming older contributions of and others. Is this due to some database shift or I am glitching again due to overheating :-) (if not, can this be fixed? if not, what IPs/ranges may be affected by this non-display?). Thanks again for setting up this tool. Materialscientist (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, weird. I don't really have time to look at it before, say, Thursday, but more likely Friday. Sorry. :/ —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that took so long; it's fixed now. Turns out the problem was that it was printing out an HTML comment (&lt;!--) and that was causing the rest of the page to not be shown. Give it a try now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Thinking back, I should have noticed that, though it is easy to say after you know it :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion at SPI regarding DBigXray
Reaper Eternal deleted my SPI request against DBigXray and I'm trying to understand why. You previously closed some SPI's against DBigXray as shown in these archives and while it appears you had suspicions you closed them as inconclusive. But I'm curious why this latest SPI was deleted instead of letting it run to its natural conclusion? Is there something to hide? The deletion of this SPI makes things even more dubious.

Full Disclosure: I have other suspicions about DBigXray's behavior that I have brought up at the Admin's notice board. My talk page also went through a revert war by an alleged sock and a set of random users regarding evidence of bias on DBigXray's part. I brought this matter up at DBigXray's talk page (closed by him and archived after less than 24 hours). --Joshuaism (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alleged my butt. Obvious sock of Nangparbat, now blocked You also received email from another sock, an IP one of User:Highstakes00 Personally I am more concerned that you get email from known sockpuppeters which you seem to actually believe rather than listen to people who know these socks, and the two editors you accused of being socks. I wrote on the SPI page that you were way off the mark, there is no way at all that DBX & VJ are the same editor. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh... I'm really out of the loop on this one, so I'm not going to comment one way or the other. Sorry. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Stale" condition
Hi HelloAnnyong. I have a question about sockpuppet investigation. What condition is it when a sockpuppet become "stale"? I suppose it is several months since the last edit of a sockpuppet. Possibly three month? Thanks in advance. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Padmalakshmisx
Any chance you could have a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx‎. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard
Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)