User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/April

You've got mail!
Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Than you!!!
Thank you so much for this! I did not even know about the requested articles option. I will try that. I have to say though, this has been ANYTHING but EASY money! At this point, after all of the time Iv'e put in, I'm losing money.

Is there anyway to ensure that my article isn't deleted?

MelissBelle (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi MelissBelle. I posted my answer at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just saw all of your notes..Posted some in the teahouse but wanted to send this.
Thank you, again.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me.

I may end of deleting the article..if it works that way..but I sure have learned a lot, and that is greatly do to you.

Thank you, and best to you.

MelissBelle (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input
Again, I appreciate your help. and as I have stated NUMEROUS times, I welcome ANY and all input. This is my first article, as I have said, and I am learning as I go. I had NO idea that my creating this article would be such an offense.

Forgive my not being well versed in the semantics, and I will not say 'my' article again. I simply did not appreciate his methods, and there is more that happened between the other user and myself, than you could have been aware of.

I will take your post as I am sure it was meant, and that is help.

Thank you.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelissBelle (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC+9)


 * Hi . Perhaps I belabored the "my article" point a bit, but it is one of those things that new editors or subjects of articles seem to have a hard time getting used to and so its best to be avoided. Properly creating articles is hard, even for experienced editors. Inappropriate articles are being deleted all of the time, but unfortunately more are being added all of the time. Part of the problem may be the way Wikipedia is perceived by people: It bills itself as the online encyclopedia that anyone can freely edit, so the assumption is that anything can be added. First time attempts at creating articles are pretty much always highly scrutinized and almost always end up being declined or deleted. Try not to let that discourage you. There are many ways to help build Wikipedia besides article creation. Perhaps you should try something a little ambitious and work on improving existing articles of subjects you may be interested in before your next attempt. This will expose you to more styles of editing and show you how Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are being applied by others.


 * Finally, one last thing. I noticed that you tend to indent new paragraphs a single space when you post. That's probably no big deal on other online websites, but there is something quirky about Wikipedia's software which makes doing such a thing not a good idea. Indentation serves a special function on Wikipedia and there's a special way to do it, so when the software sees the blank space it does not see it as indentation. What happens is that you end up getting posts that look like there are surrounded by a light gray box
 * This is not a huge deal on user talk pages, but on more public pages it can disrupt things a bit. It also might mistakenly be interpreted as an attempt to highlight a particular sentence, etc. and give it more impact than perhaps intended. Like remembering to sign your posts, this is a little thing that just takes some time getting used to. Anyway, good luck with your editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a huge deal on user talk pages, but on more public pages it can disrupt things a bit. It also might mistakenly be interpreted as an attempt to highlight a particular sentence, etc. and give it more impact than perhaps intended. Like remembering to sign your posts, this is a little thing that just takes some time getting used to. Anyway, good luck with your editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Football & logos
Hi,

I somehow don't see you deleting logos from here, here, here and other teams. Most national team articles use logos of national federations. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think you might mean I "removed" a logo from an article; I am not an administrator so I cannot "delete" files from Wikipedia. You didn't specify the file you're referring to, but I think it might be File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png. That's a non-free logo which means that each usage of it on Wikipedia must comply with WP:NFCC (more specifically all 10 non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP). The file currently only has a non-free use rationale for the article Lithuanian Football Federation. It doesn't have the non-free use rationale for Lithuania national football team required by WP:NFCC, so I removed it from the article per WP:NFCCE. I don't think a valid non-free use rationale can be written for this particular usage because of Number 17 of WP:NFC, so I did not add one myself. If, however, you feel that this particular usage does satisfy NFCCP, then please add the appropriate non-free use rationale before re-adding the file to the article. You should be aware though that similar usages of similar logos has been discussed a number of times at WP:NFCR/WP:FFD (see Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55 and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56 for two examples), and the close has almost always be to allow the usage in the main article about the association/federation (i.e., the "parent" entity) and to disallow the usage in any individual team articles (i.e., the "child entities").


 * As for the other articles you mentioned,
 * File:LatvianFF.png does have a non-free use rationale for Latvia national football team.
 * File:Estonia FA.png does have a non-free use rationale for each article where it is currently being used, including Estonia national football team.
 * File:Belgium urbsfa.png does have a non-free use rationale for each article where it is currently being used, including Belgium national football team. I have removed it from one article for which it did not have such a rationale per NFCCE.


 * The fact that the same logo or a similar logo is being used in another articles does not necessary mean too much when it comes to non-free content because (as stated above) each usage of non-free content is evaluated separately. Lots of non-free logos are added to article all the time, even when they shouldn't be added. Some logos such as File:Greece National Football Team.svg are freely licensed and available at Wikimedia Commons so they are not subject to the NFCC. FWIW, I don't think the usage of at least two of the files mentioned above satisfy NFCCP, but this is something more suited for discussion at FFD.


 * If you would like the opinions of others regarding non-free use rationales, etc., feel free to ask at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2016

Di-missing article links
You added the template to a file in Special:Diff/714079527. I think that you should also notify the uploader when adding this template as it is a deletion template. Di-missing article links doesn't mention any notification template, so I tend to notify the uploader with as it seems to be the notification template which best describes the concern in di-missing article links. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stefan2. I will do that asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason
...why you're not an administrator? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Dweller. I'm sure there are many depending upon whom (maybe that should be "who"?) you ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was very impressed with this. Assuming it's in-character and not out of character (I'll check!), would you be averse to being nominated for adminship? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kind words, but to be honest I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning new stuff each day, so I don't really feel I'm ready to take such a step. I tend to like to work my way up the ladder rung by rung in things I do, so maybe in a few years when I've got a little more experience under my belt it would be something I would consider. As it is now, I find myself spending more time on Wikipedia than I feel I should, and I have been actually thinking about cutting back a little recently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When you do eventually go for it, please make sure someone pastes a link to that response in your RfA. That's the kind of attitude editors love to see. Nonetheless, admins, like all of us, are volunteers. There's no expectation of you giving up more time to the project if/when you get a mop. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This essay I wrote is a little old, and I never finished it, but it has some useful advice that is still relevant. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for the kind words and the link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Marchjuly, I may be up for nominating you as well, provided that another editor can promote what you do outside the "File:" namespace (which seems to be the case with Dweller). However, if you really consider this, you may have to wait a while. I saw a couple of minor red flags that could deter support; it's nothing that you have done, but rather what you haven't done. (If you want to know, feel free to send me an email as I don't want to advertise my finds here.) Steel1943  (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well Steel1943. As I posted above, I'm still learning stuff each and every day, so I'm sure there will always be things that I shouldn't have done as well as things that I should've done. Right now, I have no real need to know what the particulars are; after all, so long as I know it not, it hurteth mee not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: This talk page has seen a few conflicts in the past, but I think that's the first edit conflict that has happened. Another thing I can take off my bucket list. thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot
I see that you have deleted all of the embedded links in this page, and I would like you to reconsider. Those links were not intended "as a form of inline citation"&mdash;which, as the Wikipage you directed me to makes clear, is disallowed. In other words, they were not there to give legitimacy to the entry but rather to offer the reader immediate access to the works in question. I don't know what is gained by removing them, but much is lost. Yes, a patient reader can find the works on Google (but, in some cases, not easily), but why send that reader through the trouble? I realize that links may "rot", but then eventually everything does. A link that, if only temporarily, gives direct access to a poem or play or short story seems better to me than no link at all. (I check them regularly, by the way, and repair or remove dead ones.) Thank you for giving your attention to this. Beebuk 07:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Beebuk. External links to third websites are not really allowed to be embedded into articles like they were in Pierrot. Many of those links were for individual entries of embedded lists which is generally not allowed per WP:EL. In addition, the last part of WP:CS says "Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product...". In that example, the link is not so much being used to cite information as it is being used to direct the reader to Apple's website. It's almost being used in the same manner as a wikilink would be used to direct the reader to Apple, Inc.. Wikilinks are fine of course, and even a red link could be considered acceptable, but I think links directing the reader to external websites are not allowed. When Wikipedia was starting out, it used be acceptable to use embedded citations in articles, but this style has been deprecated and is no longer considered appropriate. If some of the links that were removed were intended to support information in the article to help the reader verify what is written, then they should converted to an inline citation. If, however, the links are simply as you state above for leading the reader to an external website (which I believe was the case for all of the ones I removed), then they should be added to the external links section instead if they satisfy WP:ELYES. Some of the links were to videos, published works or photos which might be problematic per WP:COPYLINK or WP:ELNEVER so they might not be able to even be used as external links. If you'd like another opinion on this, then we can ask at WP:ELN. If the consensus there is that the links are OK, I'll go back and re-add them to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I hope this doesn't sound impertinent of me, but I would appreciate a second opinion.  Most of those links have been in the article for years, and I've had some pretty tough scrutiny of the page from other editors (as the Talk page reveals) who, nevertheless, have not brought up the subject of the links.  (Oh, yes, there was one editor who removed links to videos because of copyright considerations&mdash;a decision with which I was, and am, in total agreement.)  Removing them seems to me to be tantamount to forbidding the use of the illustrations on the page: I don't see the difference.  But if WP:ELN says they must go, they'll go.  I've never dealt with the top brass, so would you mind doing the asking?  Thanks.  Beebuk 12:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything impertinent about your request at all and asking for the opinions of others is a way of making sure we get things right. I do, however, think that this is slightly different than using illustrations in an article simply because such files have been uploaded to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) and have (or are at least supposed to have) appropriate free licensing (or they satisfy WP:NFCC if they are non-free content) allowing their usage. Those are internal links to files being hosted on the WMF's servers where they are subject to the various policies/guidelines of Wikipedia, etc. It would, however, inappropriate (at least per my understanding  WP:EL) to directly add links to photos/illustrations hosted on external third party websites to Wikipedia articles, etc. just as it would be to link to official webpages, etc. subjects mentioned within the article itself. Anyway, I posted something at WP:ELN so feel free to comment there as to why you feel the links should be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Your recent editing history at India national cricket team shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my edit sums and at your user talk page, this file's usage has been already discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18 and the result was that the file was removed by administrator from Indian national football team and that the corresponding rationale was removed from the file's page. Continuing to ignore the consensus reached at FFD is actually edit warring on your part whereas continuing to remove the image on my part is allowed per WP:3RRNO. If you disagree with Explicit's close, then you should discuss it with him on his user talk page or follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Alpha_Phi_Omega.png
The Coat of Arms removed from Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) is equally the Coat of Arms for Alpha Phi Omega in the United States (described at Alpha Phi Omega) and Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines (described at Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines). I'm not sure why it should be removed from one.Naraht (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Narhat. This file is a non-free image due to it's copyright status. Each usage of a non-free image is required to comply with all 10 non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC which says that a valid separate, specific non-free use rationale is required for each usage of a non-free image. This particular file does have a non-free usage rationale for "Alpha Phi Omega", but it does not have one for "Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines)", so I removed it per WP:NFCCE. It is the responsibility of the editor wishing to use a non-free image in a particular article to provide a valid rationale, so if you feel the file's non-free use is justified then please provide the rationale. My personal opinion is that such a valid rationale can be written for that particular article per Number 17 of WP:NFC since the "parent entity" in this case seems to be Alpha Phi Omega and the "child entity" seems to be Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines), so I did not add one. You can ask others about this at WT:FFD or WP:MCQ if you want different opinions to make sure.
 * Finally, another of the non-free content criteria is WP:NFCC. This states that non-free content may only be used (i.e., "displayed") in the article namespace. This is why I hid the file you added as the section heading to your post. If you want to discuss a particular on a talk page, or noticeboard, etc., then you can link to it using the colon trick or simply list the file as "File:XXXX" without wikilinking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done so. APO-Philippines is a "child" of APO-USA in sort of the same way that Boy Scouts of America is the child of Scouting in the UK, but a little more formal. They are both members of an International Council, with current minor expansion to other countries. Sorry about the image as the header, I know the colon trick, I just forgot. The fraternity pages tend to have a little bit of WP:COI, I'll be happy to be a third party if you run into static in terms of enforcing the rules on those sorts of pages.Naraht (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Question football bhutan
Is there an English version of bhutan girls football team under 14 ? This one is the French version. Sorry it took so long a text, I'd like to know if you had here. I did not find.

Wikilink to French Wikipedia article about team

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ee0e:abd0:b854:9c74:3c1f:e26d (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC+9)
 * Hi . Two things before I answer your question.
 * Please do not copy and paste entire Wikipedia articles onto talk pages. Please provide a link to the article instead. How to do this is explained at Help:Link.
 * Please try to remember to sign any post you add to a talk page. You can find more information on this at WP:Signature.
 * As for you question, there is as you say an article about the team on French Wikipedia. It can be found at fr:Équipe du Bhoutan féminine de football des moins de 14 ans. I don't understand French, but I'm assuming you do. At the very right of the page at the bottom of the light gray column below the Wikipedia logo, there is a section tiltled "Langues". This section list all the articles about the team which can be found in other language Wikipedias. As you can see, there are no articles listed there so that probably means there is no equivalent article in English. My guess is that since there is a Bhutan women's national football team that the English title for the under-14 team would be something like "Bhutan women's under-14 national football team". I searched that title, but did not find any such article. It's possible it may be under a different name, so try asking for assistance at WT:FOOTY. The editors there might know if such an article exists. If you want to have someone translate the French language article into English, then please read Wikipedia:Translation for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I searched not find, I think there's the French version currently.
 * I'm sorry I do not have an account wiki.


 * If you allow me, I agree to create this page.
 * If there are changes let me know please.
 * Cordially.


 * Name BhuBhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:B854:9C74:3C1F:E26D (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again. You do not need my permission to create an article, but I believe you do need to have an account. Refer to WP:ACCOUNT for more information on how to register.
 * You should understand that creating new articles is not an easy thing to do for new editors. You do not need permission, but you do need to comply with various policies and guidelines. One of the most important is WP:N. Lots of articles are created each day, but many of them end up being deleted almost as quickly as they were added. I strongly suggest you read WP:YFA and ask for help at WT:FOOTY. If an article can be created for the team, someone there will probably help you do it. WP:FOOTY editors are quite experienced with these types of articles, so they will know how to write them. If you try to do this on your own, there's a very good chance it will be deleted because it's not up to Wikpedia's standards. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not find the place to post my article.
 * I love that you can put in the article creation please.
 * I know how to put the sources below each game and I know there are things to correct, for example see the time or summer score goals.
 * I grieve for you to have it return here, I put a good two hours to do it.
 * I'm tired x) good night.
 * Cordially.
 * BhuBhu (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e34:ee0e:abd0:b854:9c74:3c1f:e26d (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC+9)
 * Hi BhuBhu. Please do not copy and paste entire drafts of articles onto my talk page or any other talk page. If you want to create the article, then you need to register for an account. After you've registered for an account you can work on a draft of the article using Wikipedia: Articles for creation. When you feel your draft is ready, you can submit it for review. I am not going to create this article for you, but you may be able to find someone who will help you do that at WT:FOOTY or Wikipedia:Requested articles. Finally, please remember to sign your posts. The easiest way to do this is explained in WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Logos and seals of the Philippine government
Hi Marchjuly, can we get back on the non-free logos uploaded in Wikipedia and the uploads in Commons? I'm still very confused. For example, File:Commission on Audit.svg is uploaded in Commons with a public domain license. The source stated is http://philgovseals.nhcp.gov.ph/commission-on-audit/, but the website contains "Copyright 2013 - NHCP. Languages: English Filipino." So does the official website of the Commission on Audit ("Copyright 2014 Commission on Audit"). Does this mean the seal is actually non-free?

I am very confused. I have already uploaded 5 seals since 2014 and I might have been breaking the copyright law all this time. --J-Ronn (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . To be honest, I don't think you're the only one who is confused by all of this. The editors at Commons seem to be of the opinion that such logos are c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. Some editors have tried to figure this out before at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64 and apparently there have been similar discussions on Commons. The Commons template has been nominated for deletion twice and kept both times. If you want clarification regarding Commons policies then try c:COM:VP/C. I recently asked about about one of these files at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04 and another editor who commented said that they had emailed the National Library of the Philippines to ask for clarifiction. The discussion got archived, however, with no further information and the file was deleted because it did not have a source. The difference between the way Commons and Wikipedia treat these logos was also previously discussed at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/04, but nothing seems to have been resolved by that discussion as well. That's the best answer I can give you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Halifax
Hi there, I didn't upload the Halifax flag, it was already on the municipality's Wikipedia entry so I copied the file name into the flag page. I assumed it was free since it's been on the Halifax page for quite some time.Maui84 (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for the message. I realize you didn't upload the file, but you re-added it to List of Canadian flags. The template uw-nonfree says "it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page may fail our non-free image policy". (I added the bold for emphasis.) File:Halifax Flag.svg was uploaded a non-free content due to its copyright status, so each usage of it needs to comply with all 10 non-free content criteria. Usage in the Halifax article appears to be NFCC-compliant, but usage in the list article does not. When dealing with files, it's a good idea to check the licensing just to make sure before adding it to any articles. Anyway, no big deal. The template is just one way (some say a lazy way) to let an editor know about non-free images and WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sevcohaha sock
Hello Marchjuly. I'm fairly certain I've identified a Sevcohaha sock (you created the original SPI). Do you think it's worth filing a report (I'm not sure they have multiple accounts at the moment)? Because of their behaviour/attitude, I've also twigged that it's an editor who vanished after being blocked in January 2014 for personal attacks. Number  5  7  21:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Number 57. I'm not sure which account you're referring to, so I can't give my opinion either way. was the administrator who closed that SPI, so if you're worried about mistakenly accusing someone of sockpuppetry, then maybe ask them for advice. However, if you really feel this is a case of WP:DUCK, then you can start a new SPI. Just follow the instructions in "How to open an investigation" at WP:SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's more of a question of whether you think they're worth blocking if they're back to using a single account, or is their past behaviour enough for a block? Cheers, Number   5  7  21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at User talk:Sevcohaha, you'll see that they did appeal their block as recently as February and their request was declined. They also had their user talk page access revoked by, so there may be more to this than what it looks like. As I said, I don't know the account you're referring to, so I can't look at the edit history and say either way. They were advised to take the standard offer; If they ignored that advice by creating another account and returned to editing as before, then that indicates that they still don't fully get why they were blocked and that they should be reported. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The account is . The clues:
 * Sevcohaha's usernames were all digs at Rangers. Regi Blinker is a former Celtic player (Rangers' main rivals)
 * One of their first edits was to return to Katie McCabe, created by SevcoFraudsters and also edited by CraigWhyteisthelegalownerofIbrox.
 * Other articles in common include Stephanie Roche (SevcoFraudsters), Celtic F.C. women (SevcoFraudsters), Castlebar Celtic W.F.C. (SevcoFraudsters), Leah Williamson (Målfarlig!), FAI Women's Cup (SevcoFraudsters, CraigWhyteisthelegalownerofIbrox), Malin Diaz (Målfarlig!), Fran Kirby (Målfarlig!, CraigWhyteisthelegalownerofIbrox), Vittsjö GIK (Målfarlig!),
 * In several of those edit histories you can also see the vanished user. I think it's a very obvious sock, but I'm not particularly familiar with the SPI process, so I'll leave it to you if that's ok? Number   5  7  22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Sevcohaha has made quite a number of good edits indicates that this is not competency issue. They posted a very sincere sounding unblock request on their user talk and clearly stated they were willing to accept whatever the reviewing admin's final decision turned out to be. They were advised to wait 6 months before requesting another unblock. If they had done that, they would've have been unblocked and could have gone back to editing. For some unexplained reason, they decided to create another account and go back to editing the same pages. Unlike before perhaps, they clearly knew this is not acceptable based upon their unblock request, which unfortunately means any future unblock request is going to be viewed with suspicion. They've just made it a bit harder for a any administrator to remove the block.
 * The account is ✅. Thanks,, but SPI isn't that scary. You seem perfectly able to present evidence on this Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It was only a the use of a single phrase that made me wonder about the connection between Målfarlig! and ServcoFraudster. For you, it had to do with the connection between the usernames and Rangers FC. All editors have certain tells that they probably never realize they have until someone points them out. Sevcohaha went back to editing the same genre of articles and making basically the same comments in talk page threads. Someone else would've eventually noticed this and probably checked to verify their suspicions just as you did. It's puzzling why Sevcohaha chose to travel down that path once again and kind of makes you wonder if they were just conducting another experiment (see their user talk) to see if anyone would notice. This Is Spinal Tap should be required viewing for everyone. You can learn a lot from that movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)