User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3

Thanks..
Thanks for your views and i respect them. However I hold a different view of the user that i reported. The User was involved in blanking refrenced article in the two examples quoted in the report. Also the info he added had no clear refrences as i searched for it. After giving sufficient warnings i reported him. He did not even took heed of my repeated warnings. Atif.t2 (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sknth.n
Hey hi there. Can you please give me the exact reasons why you deleted the following page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship_cell And can you also please send me the original page. my email id is sknth.n@gmail.com Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sknth.n (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For two simple reasons. First, the tone of the article was so promotional it would have to have been completely rewritten in order to be more neutral in tone. Second and a more minor reason, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not your own web host. While pale in comparison to my first reason, with how the article was written, the content is better suited for an external web page than here.
 * I can surely take care in emailing you a copy of the deleted page. Please try to look at some of our Good Articles and Featured Articles for examples of how an article is supposed to be written with regards to reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and basic layout. MuZemike 20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ash1932
Hi there. I am not sure why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Analysis_Module has been deleted? I explicitly made sure to highlight the technology behind the product, rather than make it a blatant advertising promotion. There are other Cisco products that have pages here - why has this one been targeted? Ash1932 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was written almost explicitly in an advertorial tone. In addition, after looking at it again, nearly all the content is copypasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Network+Analysis+Module&timestamp=20091015122525 ; that is a copyright infringement (i.e. the content on that web page is under copyright by Cisco), which we cannot accept anyways. It needs a complete rewrite in one's own words as well as in a neutral point of view in order to even be encyclopedic. Regards, MuZemike 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding User:Dupledreux
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's not much I can do here, as I blocked the user (so I obviously cannot address the unblock request). MuZemike 04:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rihannano1fan
Did you intentionally not approve WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rihannano1fan, or did you just forget while you were making your other comments?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't approve it yet. Sitting on it and trying to see what happens here with the IPs. MuZemike 03:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Article got semiprotected by another admin, so you won't see more activity there. May see some in other places, though, since Rihannano1fan is pretty active.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dupledreux case archived?
Your comment at the sockpuppet investigation says you endorse a checkuser investigation, but the page appears to have been archived. I'm not familiar enough with checkuser to know whether or not this is normal. Is it a mistake, or is there someplace else where I should be following this case's progress now? Equazcion (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, J.delanoy and NuclearWarfare closed the SPI case, as, given from the blocked user's talk page comments, it's now moot. The archived case is at the bottom of Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive. MuZemike 04:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I'm kind of confused. Why is it now moot? I've read through his talk page but haven't seen anything that would seem to close the issue. Equazcion (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The behvioral evidence became a lot more convincing after I blocked him, when he made his unblock request and other drabble (that sounds like RJII) on his talk page. MuZemike 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International and Kimball Dean Richards
I was threatened with being blocked for making legitimate edits with reliable sources. As I begin to remove material that has no sources at all, or only uses the Allied Artists International's own web page as a source, I just got a threat on my talk page. How do I tell which threats are real and which are not.

WarriorBoy85, the person who made the legal threats, said he is part of this group with access to their counsel (on a Sunday).

This is not just an Academic Question, since the newspapers cited in the material deleted by WarriorBoy85 say that the person who is CEO has been in jail for solicitation of Murder, and this is not just a game anymore, when all I started off doing was looking up a classic movie company, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.

Is the threat to block me real, or the other threats? ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you show me where (i.e. in the form of diffs) the threats came from so I can look at them? MuZemike 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. User talk:Warriorboy85. (Only my first cup of coffee this morning ;) MuZemike 16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit summary led to me indefinitely blocking him, BTW. MuZemike 16:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

MikeDogma/Sita manu
Thanks for taking care of those blocks. Just FYI--he did change Sita manu to MikeDogma, but then he set up Sita manu a second time on 9/4. Yes, the user page and talk redirect to MikeDogma, but he has used the second Sita manu account as recently as 10/16. It's a mess, I know, but for completeness that one should probably be blocked too. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. Sita manu is now blocked, as well. Thanks, MuZemike 07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of Low Rock article
My article on low rock, a particular sub-genre of alt rock, was deleted, ostensibly for not being notable, and for being a neologism by one artist for one band. However, the phrase is used to describe various bands, not just the one (Morphine) and to group them together, such as on fan sites and on music sites. The article was in the process of being worked on, and I think that undeletion would be beneficial in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmatavka (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see; I deleted it per a rough consensus established at Articles for deletion/Low rock. I'd be more than happy to provide you a copy of the deleted article in your userspace (i.e. at User:Nmatavka/Low rock) so that you can continue to work on the page until notability can be established. How's that sound for right now? MuZemike 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. --Nmatavka (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. MuZemike 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)
Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't know if I'll participate in the AFD, but if I have nothing else to do, I'll look at it. Thanks, MuZemike 22:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you go,
Can you delete Barry Kirkey as G4, recreation of previously deleted material? I had another admin(Tiptoety) look at the deleted version in comparison with the current version, and he said that they are roughly the same, bar that one has a slight more amount of content then the other.—  Dæ dαlusContribs 06:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Also, please salt it, as the same user keeps recreating it.—  Dæ dαlusContribs 06:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted and salted. MuZemike 07:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

UnBlocking request for IP Addresses of BOLT Browser
Hi,

I am Lokesh Joshi and work for Bitstream Inc. (http://boltbrowser.com). We have a very popular mobile browser called BOLT Browser which works on server client architecture. This has minimal load is on the client (mobile phone), and user can experience the Desktop Like browsing experience. For more information please see http://boltbrowser.com.

Recently many of our users reported the following error from Wikipedia while editing the content:

"174.132.56.156 has been disabled by the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or xombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I request you please consider BOLT as legitimate cloud computing based mobile browser. This is not at all an open proxy and users will have to use BOLT client to work through the BOLT servers. More over the originating IP of the handset is available in the headers, so the individual user can be tracked in abuse cases.

Regards

Lokesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokeshjoshi (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Strasburg checkuser
Hi - I saw you'd enquired about the other (unblocked) accounts at the CU case: and they don't seem to have done anything. I'm going to make some enquiries, but thanks for asking, and hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's done, now. The SPI case just wasn't archived, which I'll shortly do. Also note that the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Committee has been notified of this matter, so we might not be able to do much else with this as it's now in the "higher-ups' hands". MuZemike 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More Dodona socks
Hi, could you perhaps take care of User:Albanopoli, another obvious User:Dodona sock continuing the same edits as the Dodona IP 80.78.77.182 you blocked the other day. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ MuZemike 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

New sock case (same puppetier)
Hi, this is a follow up to a CheckUser case you previously endorsed. See Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. Thank you. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it when my Internet connection returns to normal as it's been spotty at best. MuZemike 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd like to apologize to you first of all. I didn't realize you dealt with so many sock cases. Heh... :p -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the operating room of the 4077th mash – you get lulls there followed by deluges of cases. MuZemike 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Warriorboy85
He definately seems to "get it". I think he no longer poses any threat, and indicates he understands and intends to abide by all wikipedia policies, incluing WP:NLT and WP:3RR. I am inclined to think an unblock would be fine here; but am coming to see what you think. I am heading to bed soon, but if you don't do the honors by tommorow, and no one else has, would you mind if I unblocked him? Thanks. -- Jayron  32  05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. I'll AGF in this case. MuZemike 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article - Jonathan van voorhees
I hope I'm doing this right. I wrote the article Jonathan van voorhees and during the discussion someone suggested that it be moved to user space for improvement. Could you do that please? You appear to be the deleting admin. There was information that could be used for other articles and I would like to try to improve this article to meet quality/notability guidelines. Thank you. Jonvanv (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Jonvanv/Jonathan Van Voorhees. MuZemike 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jonvanv (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sockpuppet_investigations/Scog
Hi. I was wondering if you could give me some guidance about what happens now with respect to this investigation. I still maintain that I'm innocent of sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting or canvassing, and CU was declined in my case, presumably due to a lack of evidence, so am I within my rights to remove the sockpuppeteer tag from my user page? I'd rather not do this without an explicit OK, as I'm not seeking to cause drama, but to be honest the fact that I'm still apparently suspected of sockpuppeting is making me feel pretty unwelcome here. Regards, Scog (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead and remove it if you like. If you want your user page deleted for whichever reason, let me know. MuZemike 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Scog (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

New Sock?
Cabeachgal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.155.44 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock of whom? MuZemike 02:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sugarlover101
Just an FYI that he's been re-blocked for persistent (c) violations. Skier Dude ( talk )
 * That's fine. We did give him a chance. If he's still unable to understand despite the guidance I gave him (as well as others), then we don't have much of a choice. Thank you, MuZemike 04:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to 2009 refusal
Should the deleted redirects to "Keith Bardwell" now be restored, to go to 2009 refusal of interracial marriage in Louisiana? Someone restored the redirect from "Keith Bardwell" to the retitled article. But if the defendent in Humphrey v. Bardwell, has a redirect, shouldn't the plaintiffs (Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay) as well? Rammer (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they could (and if you think necessary, should for balance) be created as redirects, as well. MuZemike 17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
Re:Thanks for you quick attention clerking this sockpuppet case. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Cheers

Copyediting The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay‎
First off, I'm happy to know you are still on Wikipedia. Secondly, Gib told me in its Peer Review to get some editors to copyedit it, can you do that for Escape from Butcher Bay‎? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can look at it. Let me finish with Halo 3: ODST first. MuZemike 02:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell were you thinking?
I have not evaded any block. You had no right to block me at all.--125.239.151.99 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. MuZemike 07:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't evade a block, and yet you're complaining about a block which is still in effect. Right.—  Dæ dαlusContribs 08:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I believe I set all the blocks to nearly the same length, so I think they should have expired by now. MuZemike 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dragon magazine reviews
Thanks for asking! As to Blazing Lazers, let me know if you received that e-mail.

As to The Guardian Legend, unfortunately, it doesn't appear that I have a review fot that one. This is a comprehensive list of every review they did, so let me know if there's something else you've got on priority.

Now, what I can tell you is that the column did a lot of commenting on games which did not recieve a full review at any point, usually in the form of a preview or a quick nod. The Dragon CD-ROM Archives disk contains a search engine, so I did a quick look and I can tell you this is the only item I found (let me know if it is helpful) from Dragon #140:

"Nintendo players will be glad to hear that Broderbund is releasing four new Nintendo Entertainment System programs. These include: Legacy of the Wizard, a game in which you must defeat an evil dragon; The Battlefields of Napoleon, the first true war simulation for Nintendo; The Guardian Legend, in which you battle your way into an alien world to destroy evil lifeforms; and Deadly Towers, in which young Prince Myer (your character) must destroy the King of the Devils’ seven magical bell towers." BOZ (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the e-mail go through? BOZ (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it did not. Just checked my inbox, and nothing from you. MuZemike 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Your e-mail message has been sent."
 * How about now? BOZ (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do'h! Forgot to check the spambox. I see it. Thanks, MuZemike 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well I've spammed you twice, in that case. :) BOZ (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, IronGargoyle! I'm happy that at least I have let you down, yet. Unfortunately, you may have jinxed me with that barnstar as one of my closures is being reviewed right now. Oh, well :) MuZemike 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Johannes Maas (missionary)
Are you sure about this close? The only source offered that could remotely be described as independent and reliable was the alumni section of a University of Pittsburgh magazine, where the sum total of coverage is, "Johannes Maas ’67G is the international president of Worldwide Faith Missions, which builds and operates orphanages in India and Thailand". I can't see any policy or guideline basis for any of the "keep" comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasons I saw for retention were primarily based on the article meeting WP:BIO. User:Jackie-thai premised that there were print sources to be found. IMO, I didn't see a clear consensus there for deletion as a result.
 * I open to a review of my close, as I can understand your concern. However, I also strongly recommend, after looking at the page and the AFD again, discussing a merge or redirection to Worldwide Faith Missions as there looks like a good case to do either one of the two; I'm kind of surprised that was not mentioned in the AFD for some reason (unless I'm missing something, which can be the case). MuZemike 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jackie-thai did not mention any print sources about the subject, but only that some articles by the subject have been published in newspapers. If we are to take that as granting notability then every junior reporter on every newspaper in the world would be notable. As regards Worldwide Faith Missions, I was thinking of nominating that for deletion also, as, while I was looking for sources for Johannes Maas, I also couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources for that. If you look at my record you will see that I spend most of my time on Wikipedia finding sources to rescue articles from deletion, and I gave a very full explanation in this AfD of how hard I had worked to try to find them for this article, but there's just nothing available online, and nobody has offered any offline sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't think Worldwide Faith Missions is notable, you could nominate both for deletion in the near future in one AFD (as the "no consensus" close doesn't preclude reopening the deletion discussion later on). MuZemike 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not do that for the moment, as I prefer to spend my time on more constructive work than nominating articles for deletion, but I still think that, based on the arguments rather than a vote count, this article should have been deleted. Will you reconsider or shall we get wider input at WP:DRV? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's better we get more input at DRV for right now. I thought I felt that I followed appropriate AFD guidelines, but perhaps my judgment may have been off. I don't mind opening it up to some outside input on this one. MuZemike 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to give me a notification or anything like that. I'll be trawling over there sometime later today. Thanks, MuZemike 20:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css
Hi there,

I have a problem which needs to be solved. I know how to solve it but it requires the help from Administrators such as you.

The word "Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ " (English: Min Dong) does not display properly on English Wikipedia but it displays perfectly fine on Mindong Wikipedia because the Administrator there had inserted this code onto MediaWiki:Common.css:

/** CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */

/* Hope the poor little "Ṳ" looks alright...

body, pre { font-family: "Charis SIL", "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode"; }

input, textarea, select { font-family: "Charis SIL", "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode"; }

/*

However that code has not yet been inserted on English Wikipedia here: MediaWiki:Common.css

Could you help me insert that code? --Jose77 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! From creators of the article "KommandCore (Software as a service)"
Hi, dear MuZemike!

We had an attempt to create a new (and our first) article in Wikipedia. We clearly understand that you marked you attempt as deleted, 'cause it was unfinished and contained the first paragraph only. As far as we are young bigenners in terms of Wikipedia, we just tried to make up this article peacemeal. Now we are aware that we should firstly make it up in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, and only then - to try to publish it. WOuld you be so kind to accompany this process regarding our inexperience and mediocre level of our English? Actually, we need some time to get used to using Wiikpedia tool, and then what will be our steps - could make up our article in Wikipedia privately on our page - and only after it's finished to try once more to publish it? How to do that concerning the tools?

With best regards,

DmitryGaliullin (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I provided you a deleted copy of the page, which you can access and improve at User:DmitryGaliullin/KommandCore. Make sure you have read and understood our basic core guidelines and policies before you work on it. Also, if your English is limited, you may find the Simple English Wikipedia as a good alternative for you if your English is limited.
 * In addition, understand that you have a conflict of interest with the subject in which you are writing. You may want to recommend that someone else look at the article and try to edit it for you as it may be difficult for you to write the article in a neutral fashion.
 * Finally, if you don't mind, I want to make sure that the account you're using is being used by one person only; we do not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people here. Thank you, MuZemike 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we are working now on our article and trying to conform it to the basic WIkipedia guidelines. Thank you very much for your kind advices and warnings. We'll keep it in mind. And one more question if it's possible - I cannot make the uploaded image to be shown in the article )even if it was uploaded)and now there is only red link. Should we get some kimd of permission to make them appear? thanks,

Sincerely,

DmitryGaliullin (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. You wouldn't be able to upload a non-free image onto the page until the page goes back into the mainspace (see #9 of our non-free content policy). It's probably going to get deleted because of that. I'd say not to worry about that right now, because once you're able to build the article up and restart as an actual article, we can restore the image at that time. If you need to use any image as a placeholder in the article (i.e. for layout purposes), you can use File:Example.jpg in the meantime. Hope this helps out, MuZemike 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you (DmitryGaliullin) can talk with KommandCore about allowing the image (either box art or screenshot) as free content, or better yet release the program free software, that would make things much easier for both your lawyers and our administrators (like MuZemike!). (Just an outsider's suggestion.) --an odd name 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your warm support and advices! Really, it's very pleasant to work in Wikipedia when there is such cooperation.

The last question (I hope) for the moment is - how to restart the article? Firstly I tried to revert, but it changed nothing in the original article's name. Then I copied the the page the article's edit content from my the space where I build it up and then pasted it in the original article (which was earlier deleted/restored). Looking forward to your support again, please,

DmitryGaliullin (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It really should be moved back—it lacks reliable sources and too many point of view issues remain. I corrected one of those; not all are so blatant.  (Isn't there a rule for not moving your own article back from userspace without actually fixing the problems that caused deletion?  MuZemike? Anyone?) --an odd name 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Architectural Engineering
Thanks for the help with ArchitectBoiseIdaho. I don't even know what I did to warrant the attack, except... send him a Welcome template? Anyway, from his Block response, it looks like he doen't understand how WP works very well. Kilmer-san (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He issued some rather clear legal threats right after his tirade on Jimbo's talk page. You're welcome, though. MuZemike 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed his talk page-editing access, BTW, as a result of his continuance of threatening legal action on his user talk page. MuZemike 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Warmpuppy's at it again.
(Forwarding this to you since Kuru's on vacation)

Warmpuppy's back causing trouble once again in the world of Johnny Test, doing thing to the article for little or no reason. Check the edit histories and it basically confirms it (Johnny Test, puyo puyo, Diary of a wimpy kid, other kid shows). He also lives in Springfield Illinois. If you can quickly take care of this so we can return to peace once again in Johnny Test land, I'd really appreciate it.

(Already banned, but look at his edits and compare to the other socks to confirm they're the same person. Was blocked by you for being a sock puppet of course.)
 * Warmpuppy2:


 * E-Asiegbu:
 * 209.175.117.2:

Thanks. Heavydata (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Indef-blocked and 2 weeks for the IP, respectively. MuZemike 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti and 2010 in..
I thought it was weird to see you were protecting this page, as I did it earlier today. Then I realized I must've gotten sidetracked blocking the IP and never actually protected it, just added it to my watchlist. Doh! tedder (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. MuZemike 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Association of Community, Junior and Technical Colleges
Where is the page? How can I contest it if you have deleted it?

In reference to the copyright information: It is not a copyright violation if the entity approves of the usage. Wiki Information on copyright:Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content."

Furthermore this cannot be advertising since there is no product sold, no way to join, no member dues...it is purely encyclopedic...which is suppose to be what wiki is about...

I have also followed the rules regarding conferences, since this group meets once a year in a conference setting, per the wiki guidelines.

This group is an affiliate organization of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, of which Wiki has no problem posting a wiki upon...this group is no different...there should be no inconsistency in the decision making process for similar entities.

Please put the page back so I may follow the procedures to rebuke your decision. Thank you

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we must have permission from the copyright holder to release the material from copyright and license it under the Creative Commons attribution Share-alike 3.0 license (CC-BY-SA license). As you may or may not know, anyone is able to create an account and claim that they got permission from the copyright holder to allow usage (which I'm sure this isn't the case). We have a system in which we can verify that. Please follow the instructions set forth here. In a nutshell, you need to get whomever approves of the usage (i.e. the copyright holder) to email [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org]. That person can use this sample form-email to release said material from copyright and publish it under the CC-BY-SA here. Hope this helps. Thank you, MuZemike 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will get the form signed...can you put the page back in the mean time so I can add the "hangon"...I just need to make a copy, so that once I get permission I do not have to redo it...I know it is small but it still took some time. Thanks...and thanks for the information.

UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll wait until whomever responds to the email; they would be able to restore the article or tell me to if everything is good. MuZemike 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:2pac sharkur
Hi MuZemike, I saw you'd blocked User:2pac sharkur -- perhaps his talk page could be protected too, since he uses it for the same spamming purposes? Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 17:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Talk page editing access revoked. MuZemike 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

user:MachineKeebler still editing under new socks?
Hi. I noticed you were the one who handled the checkuser investigation for this individual. However, it looks very much like he's simply resorted to using a new sock called user:Raytorx. Same singular edit history, same lingustical style, etc. I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is in regards to a user who is using a sockpuppet to circumvent a block, which is why I am asking you what the proper course of action is. Here is the diff of the user's edit Edit: Noticed that there seems to be yet ANOTHER brand new user (user:Pappadam, exact same style, edits, etc. How many socks is this guy going to make? FluffyPug (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, FluffyPug, just talk page stalking here, but you are obviously not editing with your first account either. Can you kindly name your other accounts, since it looks as though you, yourself, are running undisclosed alternate accounts contrary to policy... -- Jayron  32  03:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for "talk page" stalking. I never needed to create an account before, as IPs were enough. I had to put an account down in order to deal with the sockpuppetry present in the Analog Stick, as the reporting page doesn't allow for IP reporting. This guy, on the other hand, is wholeheartedly operating under socks with the goal of creating consensus. 75.172.77.174 (talk), FluffyPug (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 04:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that seems reasonable. Though, since the SPI report you filed made the note that you believed another user was an obvious sock because it was a new account knowledge of arcane and esoteric aspects of Wikipedia, I found it somewhat ironic that the report was filed by a new account with knowledge of arcane and esoteric aspects of Wikipedia.  Your explanation seems perfectly resonable.  Now that you have created an account, I hope you keep it, as it makes it easier for people to communicate with you, and there are many other reasons why using an account is better than simply editing anonymously forever.  Anyhoo, carry on, and sorry to MuZemike for carrying on like this at his talk page.  -- Jayron  32  04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker, butting in) FluffyPug, what you said sound valid, do you mind sharing one or two IP addresses you have used recently? That would certainly prove the story fairly easily. tedder (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hidenori Kusaka
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hidenori Kusaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have commented over there. MuZemike 08:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Thanks dude/gal! I will definitely learn from this and take care to avoid meat/sockpuppetry:)

To second chances, Boromir123 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your prod of BTMFC
Hi. I had a question on this, but please bear in mind that I am NOT challenging it, as part of my continuing CSD education I am just inquiring as to why db-club couldn't be applied to this article? ArcAngel (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, I wasn't necessarily cognizant about A7. (I was just looking at whether or not it made G11 in this case.) Go ahead and tag as A7 if you feel so, as another admin right agree that it may need to be deleted per that criterion. Thanks, MuZemike 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you blocked this account for 72 hours recently, be aware that the user has been blocked before as for abuse, disruption and inability to work with others on the basis of a request she made through her IP address. The story works out the same, user is a unilateral editor doing what looks like your basic WikiGnoming but is actually making semantic changes for no reason along with the occasional factual error as bait. Editor gets called out, blanks her talkpage and then upon blocking or level 4 warning starts to complain about how she shouldn't be editing here as she doesn't fit and should be banned usually with some nonsense regarding an edit she made. Most admins seem to feel a soft touch is right with her but it doesn't amount to much more than gaming the system knowing full well she can't be stopped short of wiping out signifigant chunks of an ISP as a result. Because she is a repeat offender with heck knows how many other usernames she's used I feel an indef block is required. treelo radda 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI/CHU nudge
Curious what your thoughts are about this updated SPI request. tedder (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Future Ads Post
Hi MuZemike. I hope I am doing this right. I posted this message to your talk page, but it appeared in a previous section. I thought I would send it again just in case. Thanks. Original Message: Hello, You must see this hundreds of times, but I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, and I see that you deleted an entry I posted (Future Ads). I left a message for another user (Chuckiesdad) who put a speedy deletion warning on it, but it looks like you are the one who deleted it. So, I'm not sure who to work with, but I was hoping to rework the article to the Wiki guidelines, but I could use some editorial assistance. Would you be the right person to work with? I thought the entry was pretty neutral and included citations and references to all claims, but clearly, something was amiss. Would you please help me?? Thanks in advance. Mwebbcom (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwebbcom (talk • contribs)

Hello, You must see this hundreds of times, but I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, and I see that you deleted an entry I posted (Future Ads). I left a message for another user (Chuckiesdad) who put a speedy deletion warning on it, but it looks like you are the one who deleted it. So, I'm not sure who to work with, but I was hoping to rework the article to the Wiki guidelines, but I could use some editorial assistance. Would you be the right person to work with? I thought the entry was pretty neutral and included citations and references to all claims, but clearly, something was amiss. Would you please help me?? Thanks in advance. Mwebbcom (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Userfied to User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. MuZemike 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Rainier beach stn.jpg
Regarding your declining of the speedy deletion of this file, the original page on Flickr clearly indicates the file is availiable under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 license, not CC-BY-SA 2.0. I also mentioned this on the file's talk page. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I did not see the "NC" in front of there. Keep in mind the uploader will probably complain about the apparent compatability with the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license when there isn't with the "NC" there. MuZemike 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm the photographer in question. I'm aware that Wikipedia doesn't allow photos with the NC CC license -- but I do not intend to prevent any of my photos from being used in Wikipedia (or on other sites making use of Wikipedia's content, the usual thing). I have changed the license on the photo (not that it's a particularly good photo). Generally I will do that if someone asks me (on Flickr, not here -- I'm not here much) -- I don't do it by default, but most of the time I am happy to do it for Wikipedia use. Litlnemo (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored. Thank you, MuZemike 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lexable
You declined the speedy on this article - did you notice that the author put it there? Thedarxide (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll ask him if he wanted that page deleted. MuZemike 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

EMOC
--Captainkeith (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Hi MuZemike - please reconsider the deletion of EMOC. I am not/was not advertizing any products or services. There are several telecommunications professionals who would like to contribute to EMOC if given the chance. Thanks. Captainkeith (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article again, and I'm afraid it would need to be completely rewritten in order to be encyclopedic in tone. Stuff like

"As one can surmise, working in EMOC/ROCC can be tedious. But it can also be rewarding. A few of the rewards are meeting and making lifelong friends."


 * as well as other terms that are inappropriate (i.e. the definition of "j0er" which I consider derogatory and an attack). Sorry, but you're going to need to start over. Try looking at other articles to get a feel of what is and what is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MuZemike 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll start over but I believe you could have misread what was written. It's applicable to any company that the work can be tedious but rewards are meeting and making lifelong friends in the workplace. However, I will review other articles before reposting. Thx.--Captainkeith (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Also remember that we post comments thread-style, and responses go below the previous one. Thank you, MuZemike 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tjampuhan Hotel
An editor has nominated Tjampuhan Hotel, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you participated in the prior RfA.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
 * (a) posting their own view; and/or
 * (b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:


 * RfC Conduct
 * RfC Guide
 * RfC Guide 2
 * RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know...
Your edit here somehow messed up the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paulthegaypaul11&diff=next&oldid=324146673 - Zhang He (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's how it's supposed to be done. You put a "tlx" in front of the unblock template and then add the "unblock granted" template (substed, of course). In fact, reviewing admins need only to copypaste the text generated from the unblock template, which I'm sure I did. MuZemike 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for taking your time to revoke 's privileges to edit his own talk page. If this liberty is not taken, he will continue to post legal threats, which threatens Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation globally. A true saviour indeed!Boeing7107isdelicious 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if it comes with a bucket
I'm truly flattered you would consider me worthy of a nomination, and I'd be delighted to accept. I don't know how deeply you have examined me, but since we haven't directly interacted on a very significant level I would be more than willing to undergo some sort of informal admin/editor review process beforehand if you'd like. User:Ched Davis expressed an interest in nomming me before the year was up in a pm in August and in the near future here on WT:RFA, so it might be worth contacting him to see if he retains that interest. If I may request a favor, I'm going to be exceptionally busy the next few days, so if it works for you any time on or after midday Sunday would be most welcome. Thanks again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think I can hold it off until then. (Coincidentally, the same happened with my RFA, which I was gone for about 4 days visiting family and friends, because a certain Checkuser insisted on being horrible on timing ;) ). MuZemike 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there Muz, how goes it? Sure, I'd be more than happy to write up a co-nom statement for Amory - absolutely everything I've ever seen from her (pretty sure I'm right on the gender) has been very positive.  She's not afraid to speak her mind, and she always takes the time to research and read before she just starts typing.  We are sorely in need of some help in the admin. dept, no question in my mind about that - and I think she'd make a great one.  I know RfA has been a little ... ahhhh ... difficult (?) recently - but I don't know of any reason that she'd not pass.  I'll get something typed up in a text file here in the next day or two - and when you've written up the nom, let me know and I'll dump my 2-cents in as well.  I'll also take a look at the current "mood" at RfA and see if I can drop her a few tips on her talk page to help prepare her for the "week of hell" ... lol. You and I know what that's like eh?  Anyway - thanks for dropping me a note, I appreciate the opportunity to speak up about such a great editor.  Stay in touch, and I'll do likewise.  Cheers — Ched :  ?  18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ched, for those words. These past few days have been hellish work-wise, I can almost see the light!  And not to burst your bubble guys but I'm male, although I can certainly understand the why one might think otherwise. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops ... sorry Amory. dude ... lose the "pink" in your sig.! .. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all set now, so let 'er rip. Thanks for waiting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, you had denied my request for unblock because you were convinced I was edit warring. In light of that, I just wanted to ask for some help from you as you appear to be someone with knowledge on how to go about things. I would like to add the quotes another editor (the one I was accused of warring with) proposed be added to the article. I would like to know when a safe time for me to do this would be, so as to avoid any further confusion. Thanks! Shazbot85 Talk 07:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in my declining your unblock request, if there's a disagreement in what should be in the article, stop editing the article and discuss on its discussion page. Just because somebody else is trying to edit-war on the article doesn't mean you have to. The key is to maintain composure in such situations and resist the urge to revert the other person's edit. Be cool, and discuss civilly and calmly; having a hot head never results in anything good happening. We do have venues to resolve disuptes if both parties disagree. This page does a good job in outlining what next steps to take if the dispute cannot be settled. Hope that helps, MuZemike 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Antihase
, whom I previously reported as being a suspected sock of Nicolaas Smith and, has just demanded to be blocked from Wikipedia for life, much as Smith did before him. Think we should oblige? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Antihase has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, which he was doing alongside his "begging to be banned". Perhaps we should take another look into that SPI? MuZemike 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since PennySeven declared that he was starting over, then loudly declared that he was _not_ starting over, then started over anyway, any AGF involved in letting him try again would seem to be obviated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Arthur. I made my view over there. MuZemike 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my appeal at the noticeboard. I was known as MoonHoaxBat, but for abusing (i.e. appealing) on my talk page, I had no way to find out how to appeal to ArbCom.  I would appreciate it if you could see the noticeboard.  I am notifying you because I am not trying to slip something past the community.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just responded there. Let's keep everything on the ANI page. Thank you, MuZemike 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFA
Heh! Sorry! I undid my neutral comment. Looks like a solid candidate by the way, so looking forward to offering my support when the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed :) . Pedro : Chat  22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Glad to see someone persuaded him :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your secret?
Saw the new RFA and was going to add the stats... but I see you already did. Do you mind if I ask how you did [Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Amorymeltzer this]? I mean, I know how to run it and how to format them (if I spend time) and how to add the collapse box - but I am wondering if there is any easy copy/paste which works better for adding the edit stats. Thanks. 7 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened was that Iteriot's edit counter was down, so I used soxred's counter instead. I had to manually make the editcount breakdown into a tabular form so it was readable. MuZemike 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it - thanks.  7  22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ConceptDraw products
Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but you approved ConceptDraw PROJECT article and I hope that you could help me.

Recently my account was blocked and all articles were deleted (except ConceptDraw PROJECT, but it got speedy which was rejected). May I explain you the situation from side? I'm not trying to hide my COI or use proxies, I behave by Wiki rules, I wrote articles which were approved by Wiki admins and after that suddenly all of them deleted by Hu12. Moreover, he blocked my account because of bad history of ConceptDraw products in Wiki (but I was trying to fix this situation) and the existence of other accounts from this IP (VPN Internet gives us a single IP for all workers, but only I'm writing about our products, no puppets at all) and I'm evading block (write from my IP not using proxies) only for appealing and discussion. My goal is to provide useful and objective information about notable products that will met Wiki requirements. The existence of articles about our competitors products (which are far more promotional and have less references) confirms that it's possible.

Could you please give me any advice concerning this situation? I don't want to make things worse.

Many thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

indef semi of Fort Hood shootings
We don't normally leave pages on indefinite semi-protection - ordinarily just a few days at a time is enough. Can I ask you to review and un-protect if justified? Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there were loads of vandalism from the get-go when the article was created. I have to full-protect anyone from moving the page a couple of days ago because this moron decided to have some politically-motivated fun and move the page after getting autoconfirmed status. Personally, I'd keep it on semi-protection for right now (and obviously full move-protection) until the media frenzy is over at the least. Remember, "indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "infinite". You can also bring it up on the article's talk page and see what everyone else there thinks. MuZemike 19:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - but can I suggest changing the period to 7 days instead of indefinite. Leaving articles on indefinite protection is sort of a no-no. Much better to be reminded every few days than get in the habit of leaving in protect mode and nobody remembers why. Ronnotel (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Fort Hood map
Following your post at Talk:Fort Hood shooting I won't be updating the map, but it does raise a few questions that you may be able to answer. On google maps, if you zoom in close enough to see Hospital road, it appears to be basically perpendicular to Battalion road. On the map I found, it comes down angled to the right. Did something change, or was the map maker just careless? - Drew Smith What I've done 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've been down there, and I wouldn't remember much of how that base was built, but that is certainly odd. It could very well be a careless map maker. MuZemike 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Preventing edit conflicts.
Hello, first I would like to thank you for your help at DYK lately. It is appreciated. I understand you are an admin; however, I would like to point out one thing through. When an editor is in the process of compliling a prep area, it is courtesy to not also attempt to fill in the same prep area. This sometimes causes unbalanced queues and edit conflicts. As your probuly well aware with the long page loading of the DYK Talk template, this can be flusterating for someone who has edited an hook, corrected a template that may have had the credits incorrectly formated (as happens from time to time with new nominators or multi hooks), and then haves an edit conflict. Especially when the person also placed an In-use tag to keep it from happenning again. A quick look at either the template or watchlist will show if someone is working on the prep. I hope this is taken as constructive rather than negative. And thanks again Calmer   Waters  21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't aware that the rule was one person working on one prep area at a time. I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks, MuZemike 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a rule as far as I know, nor did I want it to sound like one. Just a courtesy. DYK needs all the help it can get to keep it running smoothly, and having admins who have the ability to promote to queues is always a huge plus. I'm more than happy to step back from setting up a prep area if there is an editor that wants to help. The more editors familiar with how to set up a queue the better :) It was only a suggestion if there is someone is working on a prep area and there is an empty one that can also be worked on. Again thank you. Calmer   Waters  21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dougmac7
Good call on the Dougmac7 unblock, it seems like he's a new user who just got crossed up. He's got a lot to learn here, but I think his problems are just due to being a newbie and not to purposeful disruption. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I looked at the SPI first without really looking at the ANI post, so yeah, a mistake on my part. MuZemike 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know
Can you please review the comment you left for Argleton? You rejected the hook for being posted more than five days after the article was created, but it's clearly indicated that this is a 5x expansion nom, and the nom was made on the day of expansion. Small-town hero (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ticked. Thanks for letting me know of my oversight there. MuZemike 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Small-town hero (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kathyrncelestewright
How strong is the evidence that Kathyrncelestewright is ItsLassieTime? I can see a few subject cross overs (NancyDrew, Princess and the Pea, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, this has a statement saying that they are not related. Was there an update that is missing that says they are? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just posted a huge wall of evidence . The behavioral evidence too closely fits the MO of LaSylphide in particular, who was blocked as an admitted sock of ItsLassieTime. MuZemike 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that helps. I'm just a little concerned because I worked with them at FAC and GAN. Their statements seemed to have a lot of vigor and close analysis so I am not concerned about their merits. It is still saddening to see this. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime
I've left inguiries at the SPI page. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, was about to replay. Thank you, MuZemike 04:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the replies. The evidence is quite strong (regretful to see that such productive editors who can write many GA articles are block evading socks), so I appreciate your hard work. However, the Checkusuer's comment is very vague to parse, so I might visit his user page for that. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did clarify over at SPI just now that ILT and the other previously-blocked socks were stale. Keep in mind that ILT was a very good GA/FA writer as well. (I don't know about LaSylphide, probably the same.) MuZemike 04:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not see your latest reply while leaving a message to the Checkuser, User:Brandon. You've a lot of SPI experiences, so there is no question about your judgment on this case. I don't know exactly how ItsLassieTime or other socks ended up to be banned for 18 months, but I have interacted with Kathyrncelestewright for her fine articles and DYK matters, so well...yeas, it would've been much better if ItsLassieTime had requested for unban appeal to ArbCom instead of the socking. It is a shame--Caspian blue 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive528 for the whole story. And yes, you are right. She (I'm assuming "she".) does have the prerogative to appeal her community ban to ArbCom at any time if she wishes to do so. MuZemike 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but I commented at the case regarding ItsLassieTime, but since it's listed as completed thought I should notify you also. I think there are a few more accounts, User:ElvenAmerican and User:ThemeParker.  Sodam Yat (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm starting to think more and more that they're definitely not related to ILT but are definitely meatpuppets. The block on Benvenuto is moot anyways, as the user didn't wish to use that account. I'm inclined to allow ThemeParker to edit freely here, and I don't think it's any use either to block ElvenAmerican. MuZemike 06:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)Sounds good, I just wanted to make sure it was intentional and not an oversight. I agree, for what its worth. I'm going to go and try to explain why I accused them, so maybe they won't have such hard feelings. Sodam Yat (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request User:gomezbuster
I was indefinitely blocked on October 20th, 2009. I realize that what I did was wrong. I did not realize it at the time and abided by the warnings issued and did not re-post my article Timonia after the warning was issue. I also let my anger get the best of me and want to issue an appology to CambridgeBayWeather. I also would like to retract anything that eluded to legal action from my post. I realize that my actions were wrong and that I acted out of anger. I regret the actions that I have taken and recognize the greatness of what Wikipedia offers the internet community. If you want to know something, it is almost always on here. I respect why my article can not be listed and agree now that it should not be. I would like the chance to prove my trustworthiness and be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. I would understand if I am on a strict watch and would agree that anything I do wrong from this point forward should result in a permanent ban. I do not want that and just wish to have my indefinite ban lifted. I will help to add grammatical correctness to articles and add positive information that will help all Wikipedia users. If you disagree, I understand why. I am just asking to please consider since it has now been 3 weeks since my suspension and the waters have cooled. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, User:Gomezbuster 70.159.43.66 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please post the same thing under your blocked username on your talk page? I have lifted your talk page restriction, so you should be able to edit it.
 * Also, a word of advice next time: do not use other accounts (like you just did with the IP above) to go outside your block. It can be construed as block evasion, which can make things worse. Thank you, MuZemike 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaa-something
If you need more material to add check http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/aaaaa Also, if you need to have a German source looked at I'm happy to help you. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think one of the sources I used was translated from German. I have some understanding of German myself, but if you want to help out as well, then go ahead. Thank you, MuZemike 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood shooting semi-protection
Hi MuZemike, I see this issue was raised above by another editor and there have already been a couple of discussions about it on the article talk page, but I've opened a new talk page section about the possibility of unprotecting the Fort Hood shooting article which you (quite understandably) semi-protected about five days ago. I'm thinking it might be time to lift that and see what happens but am seeking feedback from other editors in order to determine if there's consensus for that or not, so if you have any thoughts please weigh in. Thanks! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll make my over there eventually. Thanks, MuZemike 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
You really ask for forgiveness for everything I did, really and I say very sincerely that it was not wise politics, until a user account dermo me, my spelling is because I am from U.S. but raised in Mexico, then I have problems with the English, well I beg forgiveness and Deserves me blocking the bills, but I want to give me another chance. Answer me. 201.233.204.249 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the account I (or another admin) blocked? MuZemike 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not understand what you said but anyway, pardon. 201.233.204.249 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I cannot help you. You may want to try helping out at the Simple English Wikipedia instead or consider helping out at the Wikipedia at your own language at the Spanish Wikipedia. Regards, MuZemike 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime article creations
I've gone through the list of ones they made. Except for Puss in Boots, they were all pretty much only edited by ItsLassieTime, so I've done the G5 tagging. Hopefully during your review of all the contribs, she didn't do any self-promoting of her own GA noms, right? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, about her GA articles, even though they are GAs, the banned user's contribution should be deleted? The G5 does not specify such thing, so I'm wondering.--Caspian blue 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, if the community wants to "turn a blind eye" in allowing good faith contribs by a banned user in violation of said ban, so be it. I mean, this is a unique case in that we're not dealing with a banned user recreating a spam or otherwise junk, as what most G5s are. That's why I said "may or may not make G5"; policy says they are normally deleted, but we can also ignore it as well if we think it's in the way. MuZemike 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can look at it in two opposing ways:
 * Are we diminishing the encyclopedia by deleting the articles, or
 * Are we diminishing the encyclopedia by welcoming back community-banned users and their contributions?
 * MuZemike 06:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen that many G5s. How about another proposal... Since there is some question as to the sourcing for the articles anyway, how about tagging them as such and moving them off to a holding queue where editors who are familiar with these topics can work on verifying each article? There's WP:INCUBATE, although that certainly would be a lot of articles to move there. I'm just not sure that much good will come from deleting verifiable material and if the editor ever does appeal their community ban, then what? --Tothwolf (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We could also defer them to whichever WikiProject deals with children's literature. MuZemike 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True. If it turns out a particular article is nothing but bunk, it can always still go via AfD. (Whatever is decided though, just a reminder to remember to check the deleted contribs now since many of the G5s have already been deleted.) --Tothwolf (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got a list of all of the titles stored, so if anyone wishes to take responsibility for them, just let me know. MuZemike 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * if we actually are trying to build an encyclopedia we must recuse, not discard the articles. Out socking policy is self contradictory: we say do not sock, but if you do, write so well that you will not get caught; however, if we do catch you, we'll throw out your work no matter how good it is. we say we're trying to discourage socking by having the penalty of the work being discarded; if we really wanted to prevent socking, we would set up contributor policies such as to make ti technically impossible, or at least much more more difficult.  What we've done at the moment is set a trap for people---misbehave as much as you like, but try to be so clever we won't catch you. So what do we get? Good writers are are difficult people who contribute against he rules. We   want good writers who are not difficult people, but what are we to do with those who are one but not the other? Trhrow them all out, or reform them? We don't reform problem people by encouraging them to cheat. We don;t help ourselves by not taking advantage of whatever good they have done when they do cheat.
 * MuZemike, could you post your list, please, if you have not already done so.   DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but its this recusing that keeps them coming back. It doesn't matter if they get caught, they'll still have gotten away with editing and their work has been done. We do not know if ItsLassieTime is a good editor, people only presume he/she is because of presuming that all the offline sources they have used are all accurate. No one has checked most of them, not before and not now. Considering her tendency at adding her personal opinions and ideas into some articles where things were checked (namely the Lassie realm), the rest need to be scrutinized. Does it actually help build the encyclopedia to have factually incorrect articles in place? Also, you mistate the socking, because really what we have is it says you are not allowed to sock and not allowed to edit, but if you write well enough, we'll just let you get away with it even after you are caught and keep your work because it was good enoguh. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Two examples of two different things: 1. Negative: Poor use of copyrighted sources. 2. Positive: Helping with a FAC after working on the GAN. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least a partial list can be found in the history of Kathyrncelestewright's userpage. I would think all of the others could be found via Kathyrncelestewright's deleted contribs. Since Collectonian appears to have done the identification and tagging it should also be possible to find most of the others via Collectonian's deleted contribs from approximately 04:30 12 November 2009 UTC. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A non-admin ARS fellow basically just went through and removed all the CSDs. I've tagged them all with disputed instead. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth be known, I was tempted to remove at least 4-5 of them myself while reviewing the whole lot, and a handful had already been turned down for speedy deletion by various admins, so complaining that someone affiliated with "ARS" removed them and mentioning them as an "ARS fellow" certainly doesn't seem to be a proper thing to do. There is no deadline and the more I think about this, the more I think tagging for possible source issues and possibly moving these off to a holding queue for review would be the best way to go about it. I should also note that of those already deleted, in many cases all the backlinks were removed at the same time with a script, and I really don't think those links should have been removed at all in this particular case. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a few were turned down by admins. Some were deleted, some were declined with someone actually taking responsibility to check them. I've tagged them all, but moving them off to a holding pen would be good. I didn't do the delinking, so will have to ask the deleting admins about that. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The deleting admin did use Twinkle, which has the option to remove backlinks when deleting a page. MuZemike 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MuZemike - If you or anyone puts up any of these pages for AfD or speedy, could someone please contact User:Awadewit‎ and myself? I am sure that we can provide any information if people are inclined to keep these articles, and I have even reviewed some of the pages at GAN. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would certainly be willing to help verify these articles. Please let me know what I should do. Awadewit (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For that reason I'd like to suggest any deleted material of Kathyrncelestewright be restored to mainspace. (A list of those articles undeleted but disputed-tagged would also be useful.) To the extent limited time allows me, I would be willing to help any examining efforts. –Whitehorse1 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found out about this from having GA-related pages watchlisted. I remembered earlier events involving this editor. The discussion is here, but here's a summary: Back in April, User:ItsLassieTime had nominated The Princess and the Pea for review. When they were blocked, it was brought up on the GAN page, and the unreviewed article was 'quick failed'. Strong disagreement ensued, centering on the prevailing view being that a reason for failing was that it used less easy to check offline references (read: books). An experienced reviewer (it was Malleus), was prepared to get hold of the offline sources, and stepped up as reviewee. After a reviewer ultimately passed the article, the reviewee added this notable comment to the above-linked discussion. Further up on that same discussion was a thread about an article ILT had been reviewing, pre-block. Their review, if picky, seemed thorough at least. Another reviewer took the reins, the article passed GA, and went on to live in a castle of Featured content happily ever after.
 * Whatever other antics this individual engaged in, no indications of inserting fabricated/mis-information into articles, passing their own articles using socks, etc., came into play from what I have seen. By contrast, they appear to have improved their appropriate paraphrasing skills, and write well, using high quality sources, with particular interest in literature and folklore. Other conduct they engaged in, and I neither claim to know nor have time or inclination to learn its motivation, was less fortunate of course.
 * The issue of indef-blocked user contribs can be difficult to balance. We should not tolerate disruption; neither, should we cut our nose off to spite our face. Articles only having substantive contribs by a single person is not uncommon onsite. Summarily G5'ing here, on balance, does not ultimately seem the best for Wikipedia. I do understand where Collectonian is coming from in respect of deletion given the editor's history of mistruths. With that said, the territory of the compulsive honesty issues seem to have been restricted&mdash;not spilling over into hoaxes or misattributing material to references.

Check-list
Here is the list of article I believe were tagged as G5 (may or may not be deleted; some may have already been declined, I don't know right now):


 * The Daisy (fairy tale)
 * The Dying Child
 * The Snowman (fairy tale)
 * Harald Scharff
 * Spratt's
 * Histoires ou contes du temps passé
 * List of adaptations of Bluebeard
 * Flore et Zéphire
 * Riquet à la Houppe
 * Catherine Bernard
 * Jason et Médée
 * Les Fêtes Chinoises
 * Don Juan (ballet)
 * Fairy Tales Told for Children. First Collection.
 * Little Claus and Big Claus
 * Little Ida's Flowers
 * List of The Emperor's New Clothes adaptations and miscellanea
 * List of The Little Mermaid adaptations and miscellanea
 * The Naughty Boy
 * The Traveling Companion
 * Heartache (short story)
 * The Galoshes of Fortune
 * O. T.
 * The Garden of Paradise
 * The Storks
 * Fairy Tales Told for Children. New Collection.
 * The Rose Elf
 * The Improvisatore
 * Only a Fiddler
 * The Buckwheat
 * The Two Baronesses

MuZemike 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed two from that list. Those were Bambifan101 creations and not ILTs. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks for the list. I agree  very much    with the approach of Tothwolf and Ottava Rima, though I do recognize the problems with some of the editing.     DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At least, List of adaptations of Bluebeard, List of The Emperor's New Clothes adaptations and miscellanea, List of The Little Mermaid adaptations and miscellanea should not be considered as part of the G5 materials because they are other editors contributions before ItsLassieTime moved them to new article spaces. --Caspian blue 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only other edits on List of The Emperor's New Clothes adaptations and miscellanea were regarding the CSD-tagging and untagging, so I don't think that counts. However, I'd say you're right on the other two. MuZemike 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
Hi. I didn't notice the discussion above and started deleting articles after stumbling over the sock. Is anyone actually checking all those articles? I will move that we unban the user if we're going to just accept all of his/her contributions anyway. "You're banned - except from writing articles" is obviously absurd. Please advise. Thanks. Wknight94 talk  00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can participate in the discussion above if you wish. IMO, I you you (as well as I) are in the minority here, though. MuZemike 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it needs to go to the community for an unban. They can't have it both ways.  We're wasting our time and checkuser's time, etc. if we hunt down socks and then don't do anything about them.   Wknight94  talk  00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of agreed. If we're going to say you're banned, then it needs to be banned period. Not, banned, but if you make articles we like, we'll keep them but continue to ban you anyway. Otherwise, strike that from the ban policy, unblock ILTs dozen+ known socks and just let them edit with all the issues from before. By keeping the contributions the way that's being advocated above, we're basically telling banned editors to go ahead and sock, cause even if they are caught, whatever they did will be left so long as it seems good. It seems pretty obvious ILT likes getting DYK and GA credits, no matter what account its on. This is encouraging these types of sockers to just keep making new socks and continue editing freely, while also perpetuating a double standard for banned editors (others are properly deleted on sight, per policy, regardless of an evaluation of its being "good" or not). --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the same time, it makes little sense to throw out the baby with the bath water, which is why I suggested tagging and moving them to a holding queue to be reviewed individually. The articles that are most often deleted as G5 are spam or otherwise worthless bunk. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have deleted and seen others delete articles that, at first glance, appear to be fine.  I've let people convince me to keep them by saying they'll check the articles, only to have someone really check them and find out they're copyvio or false information, etc.  Banned users are banned because they can't be trusted.  In this case, the socks were getting into GA nominations, doing them haphazardly and probably had socks promoting other socks' GA's.  This whole thing stinks to hell and I'm fine with losing a few articles that few other people seemed to actually care about anyway.  I found nothing but minor typo corrections and cat edits in the ones I deleted so far.  If the subjects are so notable, someone not banned will write them properly any minute now.   Wknight94  talk  01:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oi... I'll agree with you that it is a bad situation. At the same time, each case is unique and should be handled as such. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But IMHO none of them should end with status quo. Delete or unban.  Trying to have it both ways is unsustainable.   Wknight94  talk  01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

← Howdy. I'm in the middle of looking at "The Snowman (fairy tale)" (dispute-tagged) now, as part of examining their GA-related stuff, in response to the thread by Wknight94 over at wt:ga. I'll comment on its talkpg in a few mins. As for the overarching matter of ban status & contrib retention discussed in this section, I'd like to take part in that discussion, having got through the GA-oriented stuff to reply to that thread. Thanks, –Whitehorse1. 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of those're done now; am tiring, so back after sleep. –Whitehorse1 03:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * moved from my Wknight94 talk page Hi, at least couldn't "list" articles be restored since the banned user just moved already existent contents from already existent articles contributed by other editors? --Caspian blue 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with the lists. Where were they moved from?   Wknight94  talk  02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you only deleted "one list" article, List of The Little Mermaid adaptations and miscellanea. The move from The Little Mermaid by ItsLassieTime can be seen with this diff. --Caspian blue 02:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since they were all splits anyway, I'd suggest just remerging them back to their parents. No need to recreate the lists, which were not that encyclopedic or appropriate as is. Better they just be restored to the original articles, and valid editors discuss whether or not a split is appropriate. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused but I restored the one list article I deleted.  Wknight94  talk  03:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As at least one user removed the db-banned template, speedy is not the appropriate manner of deletion for any of these articles. What is required is a centralized discussion in a location where editors concerned with deletion would expect to find it. Please see Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15. Bongo matic  18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Opening that deletion review was most unhelpful in my view. The matter was already being discussed here, with all parties being receptive to discussion. By way of example, I noticed articles listed above being deleted, while previewing a comment I was writing. I posted to the deleting admin's talkpg to ask them to please stop so as to allow all to take stock, alerting them to the ongoing discussion here. A discussion, about which reasonably they could not previously have known. Immediately, they did so, going on to participate in discussion here. Afterward, you posted to their talkpage asserting their activity lay contrary to policy, Bongomatic. They corrected your statement on a technical point, before directing you to this ongoing discussion so you could participate toward a commonly acceptable resolution. You, apparently, decided that just wasn't good enough for your liking, and opened a full deletion review&mdash;thus fragmenting discussion further. As the matter was being discussed perfectly effectively here already, it is difficult to see how fragmenting to yet another disparate site page is helpful. –Whitehorse1 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Bopngo here. We are not required to remove such articles, though we may choose to do so.--aswith all speedy criteria, it is to provide a means by which articles may be removed. The condition for doing this by speedy is that nobody objects. Bongo having removed the speedy tag, and, since he is a good faith editor with abol;ugtely no connection to the sockpuppettry, putting it back was outside of process. so far outside of process that in addition to a deletion review being called for, I would say that some comment is necessary about the necessity of an individual  admin not trying to dictate to the others by bypassing process in disputed cases.
 * I see no reason for the dichotomy of "delete or unban". The articles should not have been inserted by the ed involved. But since they were, they should be judged on their merits. It does not help the encyclopedia to throw out good articles on the basis of who wrote them.   DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, but I am starting a discussion at ANI soon (once I gather all my various links...)  Wknight94  talk  18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI  Wknight94  talk  18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the right place. AfD is the venue for discussion deletions of articles for any reason&mdash;whether policy or guideline. Bongo<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"> matic  18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to this discussion, I now count at least two more (ANI/DRV) on the same topic sphere. As for whether the Incidents board is suited to exploring nuances and facets of this specific case, I have no comment. I am none too happy about a diff under my name being posted on that board. But what's done is done. Wknight94, I respect and understand where you're coming from with this, based on your previous experience plus knowledge. In fact, I can understand where each previous contributor to this discussion is coming from, even if I may take a different stance on some aspects based on what evidence I've seen. Because this discussion has branched off once more, to that board, reluctantly and sadly I withdraw from discussion of this matter. Be well. –Whitehorse1 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well MuZemike's talk page certainly isn't the right venue. Bongomatic wants to discuss only these particular deletions so s/he is at DRV.  But I want discussion on the overarching issue of what the heck it means to ban someone in the first place.  This isn't the first time this issue has come up.  Bans with no enforcement.  Whitehorse1, the ANI thread is not to attack anyone in particular so I don't know why you would be offended by your name being in a diff there.  If anything, you're presented as the only person actually doing anything about the ban or articles.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry
Hi, I saw your comments on the Sockpuppet_investigations/Panehesy. Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. What we have been doing over the past two years is we talk to those who already share those views and who are interested in contributing. They may not be aware of Wikipedia, or may not be familiar enough with it. We don't dictate to them what to say, but we discuss the matter and look over the evidence. Some of us are more experienced and savvy than others. But we don't recruit editors who are non-interested parties on the subject matter. Bear in mind, also, we have provided very good cited sources and references on the Black people article, Skin color and many others. We are challenging obsolete views published as factually correct, like the Von Luschan skin tone, which is used in the skin color article in such a way to make it appear to be the correct standard. I just added a note in the talk page for it, but I'm not the only one working on it. The point is, we want Wikipedia stop redirecting cited evidence in race related articles that deconstructs long held semi-racist views. So we call on different people to do so. That's not meat puppetry. Thank you. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. What you're doing is getting people from outside this community to try to sway consensus or stack a community discussion. I haven't really followed the situation very closely, (I just look at the sock puppetry cases that come forth and make my decisions from looking at the editing patterns and evidence given.) but such actions can be taken into account when deciding on a course of action. MuZemike 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One week later...
Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for everything - taking the time to consider me, the amazing nomination, and of course vote one! It all went pretty smoothly, but hey, at the very least it gave you some practice at nominating! Oh and thanks for updating my user page header. Now if only I could figure out all these damn extra buttons... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
It's an area that I'm not very versed in like you are. Is this case worth looking into? Something weird is happening if you look at the combined contributions.  Royal broil  02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll look into it. MuZemike 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm glad it's in capable hands. Be aware that User:RoadMan13 had me speedy delete dozens of those user pages that s/he had redirected to User:Periodic Table.  Royal broil  03:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:Tnaniua
Are you sure there's evidence that this user is a sock of User:Rayesworied? On 17 June they edit-warred with each other ; a cursory glance at Tnaniua's talk page reveals a warning from Rayesworied. That doesn't seem like typical sock behavior, unless the puppeteer is quite a good actor. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that all the IPs go to the same place in Seoul, though, looking at it from a more technical standpoint. MuZemike 03:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your User Page
Is to die for. :) Crafty (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering he reverted that vandal back in October I am assuming he picked the wrong rollback - and I have boldly undone the change. Feel free to trout me if I am mistaken.   7  09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was doing the exact same thing but you beat me to the save page button ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ffdsajkl101
I intended on leaving you a note, as the blocking admin who handled the original case. Good thing you saw my note about the latest sock on the SSP page. Thanks for extending the block on the master. Sorry I didn't contact you directly earlier. -Andrew c [talk] 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request from Jackie JP
User talk:Jackie JP's unblock request is believable to me, based on her contributions. Is there additional evidence that she is a sockpuppet, or may I unblock? rspεεr (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how or why this happened, but when you blocked this user you must have removed the entry on her user page which showed that she had indeed provided her email address, in an attempt to show that she was who she said she was. The history seems to have been cleared too. Can this be reinstated, if only to prove that she had done what was asked of her? In her unblock request she mentions that she had provided the address on 12 Nov. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the unblock request from Jackie JP, I have seen that User:Rhode Island Red asked her to provide evidence of her status as a Juice Plus employee at 16:11 on 8 Nov. diff, and then raised the SPI on her on the same day at 23:54diff, claiming that she had not provided an evidence. This seems like unreasonable haste. --TraceyR (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see recent comments on this matter here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue shouldn't be about TraceyR vs. Rhode Island Red. Instead of TraceyR and Rhode Island Red continuing to accuse each other of various sorts of subterfuge, can I hear a comment on Jackie JP from MuZemike? rspεεr (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back earlier; I was rather busy today. Looking at the history of all the suspected sock puppets at Sockpuppet investigations/JuliaHavey, all the edits from all the suspected socks squarely fixate on the Juice Plus article and involve inserting some sort of POV-style edit every time, in a way that suggests that all these accounts have a COI with Juice Plus. All the accounts have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is spamming and making the Juice Plus article a vehicle for advertising/SEO capabilities, which is not what Wikipedia is for; you can clearly see it in Jackie JP's unblock request. Regardless of whether this is clear socking or even meatpuppetry (which I think, at a minimum, the latter is going on), these accounts' sole purpose is to claim ownership to the article and trying to scare off other editors in the process.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with an unblock here, given from what I have seen above. Other editors should be able to change the article as need be in an accurate, neutral fashion without fear of being hounded by whomever actually affiliated with the subject. MuZemike 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note, in a response to TraceyR's query, that I did delete the userpage in order to suppress the email for privacy reasons. I have realized the user being upfront as TraceyR said. I didn't want anyone to use that email for bad-faith purposes (just as we don't include telephone numbers or anything worse; in fact, telephone numbers, physical addresses, etc., are normally oversightable to protect the person behind that number, address, etc.). MuZemike 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll restore the page, but I'm not going to place the email address back on the userpage. Besides, it's now part of the unblock request, which is another issue altogether. (This is precisely why we have an unblock mailing list and email for more sensitive stuff like this, my $.02.) MuZemike 20:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I haven't seen any evidence so far that Jackie JP and TraceyR (or, for that matter, Julia Havey) are the same person. In fact, they sound rather different in tone. They have the same COI, of course, but in Jackie JP's few edits she seemed to follow WP:COI responsibly and to the letter. She disclosed her COI, brought up the change she wanted to make on the talk page, solicited feedback, and made the change when it seemed to be uncontroversial. This is exactly how we want people with a COI to act. Sure, she messed up the licensing on the image, but given how complicated our copyright policy is, actually getting it right would be better evidence of sockpuppetry than getting it wrong!
 * Others involved, such as JuliaHavey and TraceyR, have not been particularly responsible about their COI, but dealing with that by blocking Jackie JP under the pretense of "sockpuppetry" seems to me kind of like invading Iraq to retaliate against Afghanistan.
 * I don't support multi-level marketing schemes at all, but I also don't support blocking new users for reasons that don't hold up under scrutiny. rspεεr (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't blocked TraceyR, though. MuZemike 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So why block Jackie JP? rspεεr (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something here? I mean, I am only looking at the evidence presented at me at the SPI. Should TraceyR be blocked as well? I'll try to look into it, if so. MuZemike 07:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support such a block. It is well warranted based on past conduct, evident by reviewing the user's contributions related to Juice Plus and their interactions with other editors. Let's disucss this in more detail please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, I feel like I'm missing something big here that I am not knowing about. MuZemike 07:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a community request to review my block at WP:AN. MuZemike 08:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting rather Kafka-esque! First it is stated clearly that no evidence has been seen that I'm the same person as Julia Havey (which is correct - one doesn't need textual analysis software to see that); but then it is stated that we "of course" have the same COI! Weird! Since the assumption (for it is no more than this) of COI in my case originates with Rhode Island Red, maybe you are the wrong person to ask about it, but I do object most strongly to the uncritical way in which you take this assumption at face value! If I were to point out the many instances of apparent COI editing by Rhode Island Red (his agenda is plain to see and has often been remarked upon over the years, including by admin Shell Kinney), would you just as readily consider blocking him? Have allegations against me been made off-Wiki, of which I'm not aware? Is this where the reference to "multi-level marketing schemes" comes from? This is Alice-in-Wikiland! I have stated that I have no COI here; Rhode Island Red once claimed the same for himself. So why the assumption in my case? Let's have a level playing-field, please. I'll post this on Rspeer's talk page too, since this is where the COI assumption came from. --TraceyR (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy MuZemike's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Churches of Christ GA Review
I just wanted to let you know that I think we've addressed all of the issues you've found so far. I've tried to flag the ones I wasn't sure about on the review page. (And thanks for taking on the review of the article!) EastTN (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm going to go over the last section right now. Sorry, I've been really busy IRL as well as in other wiki-venues. MuZemike 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize - I appreciate all the time you've put into the article! EastTN (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 NW  ( Talk ) 03:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Iowawindow
I unblocked this user, as Brandon didn't actually link him to any other user in the SPI case. Hope that's all right with you. Cheers,  NW  ( Talk ) 03:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the unblock. MuZemike 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SS Lavia DYK
Shorter hook proposed. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced message for you...
...here. Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chris mentillo
Take a look here]. Block evasion and an attempt to bypass the AfD decision? Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took some admin actions and have commented over at the appropriate section at WP:COIN. MuZemike 08:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Bye. Do you like to intervine again here: Wikipedia talk:Blocking_policy#Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy ? --Mashra (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That turkey looks like it was carved using a chain saw. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They do have those electric vibrating carving knives which makes it easier to slice the turkey with (unless I'm thinking of a chainsaw...). MuZemike 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly invented by the same guy who came up with electric chopsticks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They could have gotten Martin Yan (Yan Can Cook, see ) to chop the turkey, though those would be rather big pieces, unless he used a Ginsu knife or a katana or something. MuZemike 08:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just thinking it could have been the Ginsu knife. I recall those ads. They would use the knife to cut the corner off the dining room table, or maybe to cut through a steel pipe or maybe diamonds, and after all that abuse it would cut a loaf of bread with ease (watch out for debris from the other cuttings, though). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jarrod K
Please be advised that I've invited Jarrod K to use me as a proxy for the very limited purpose of contesting a PROD on an article he created. It's only fair, as I put the PROD up before seeing he was blocked, and you only get one chance to PROD so I can't un-prod now and re-prod in 3 weeks. See here. As his email is currently not set, he won't be able to email me until he sets it anyways, so I don't see it likely he will take advantage of my offer. If he does, I will of course take personal responsibility for any edit I make on his behalf. You may wish to watchlist Ritchie Campbell so you know if I do this. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll watchlist it. Thanks for letting me know. Also, make sure the article isn't a copyvio (doesn't look like, but just in case) because the user has had a history of them. Thanks for letting me know. MuZemike 01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:66.177.73.86
I see you've blocked the IP from accessing his page. How about removing that joke "new messages" banner? Or would it be better to leave it be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not stir the pot anymore than it already is. He's already looking down the barrel of a .44 Magnum, waiting for Dirty Harry to blow his head clean off...wait, was that a threat of violence that I just made? MuZemike 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would take that as a metaphor. Meanwhile, I think that was his second block in less than a week, which is a pretty good accomplishment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Seagal sock?
Hi MuZemike!

Is this guy a sock of someone? I'll deal with it in the morning if you haven't responded, but I have to log off now, and don't have time to investigate. Regards, <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;"> decltype (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he is. I can't remember of whom off the top of my head. But I have seen this user before. MuZemike 16:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. Of User:Djjesse123. Will block and tag shortly. Thank you for letting me know. MuZemike 16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No probs. I am no good with socks. Regards, <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;"> decltype (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!
Thank you for all of your help reviewing the Churches of Christ article. I had not participated in a GA review before, and really appreciate both your clear, detailed comments and all of the clean up that you did yourself. EastTN (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hidenori Kusaka
Hi MuZemike. Back in October, you deleted Hidenori Kusaka under WP:CSD. The article was re-created today by a new editor. I've cleaned it up a bit, but since I don't know what the prior version looked like or who the banned user was, I have no idea if this article falls under G5 or not. Do you mind taking a look when you have a chance? I'm not accusing anyone of anything or saying that article on its own is inappropriate. I just wanted to make sure there's no reason to think there's a ban evasion going on. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a brand new user created it. Let's AGF now, but I'll keep an eye on the contribs, and you should probably do so, as well. MuZemike 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill Harry
Thanks for reviewing it.--andreasegde (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
Thanks. I would like to become an administrator. However, I have had several past experiences that were negative and made me feel that one's ability to be the top winner in a dispute is a more important indicator than one's adherence to rules and policies. SharkD  Talk  02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had the same thing with my RFA. At least I think your contributions and interactions with myself and others indicate a good level of trust in the community. I've created the RFA page, and I'll put it live once you answer the questions and formally accept. MuZemike 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Another case
Hi! You I think closed the case concerning User:Everyme/User:Dorftrottel. I strongly suspect is also this same editor (same IP range, and same use of German). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That username is not registered. Did you misspell it or something? MuZemike 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I wasn't looking at the IP. The IP was blocked by Kanonkas. MuZemike 17:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that, but now another IP from the same ranged is continuing. Thanks!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also blocked. I don't know if rangeblocking will help much, as I think that 92 IP is also part of it. MuZemike 20:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PIO
Hi MuZemike, 151.95.253.173 is unmistakeably PIO, with identical behaviour to the recently blocked Vastaso - as you've already seen at the SPI case. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked. MuZemike 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Farnshon
is a sleeper. Became active today, made 10 edits, then edited a semi-protected global warming talk page. Scibaby? ~YellowFives 06:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Neutralhomer
I notice my IP has been blocked. I am curious as to why I wasn't notified of this investigation. Also, I wonder why my IP was blocked. My main account has not been blocked, I am not circumventing any block on my main account, so I believe the block to my IP is unnecessary. I would also note that the user who reported me for "sockpuppetry" is also engaged in vandalism which I have reverted via my IP so I wouldn't be involved in the goings-on on Wikipedia, which is how I wished to have continued. Since the user continued to vandalize the television station pages linked on my "sockpuppetry" report, I came out of retirement to address this vandalism. This is something I did not want to do.

But make no mistake, I have never covered up that I was using an IP for my edits. Back on November 11th, I reported a user to ANI (via this main account) for having a name close to mine. I welcomed the admins in this discussion to do a checkuser on the offending user saying in part "I feel since I am in retirement that it could cause people to think I am socking (to confirm I am not, I would welcome a checkuser...you will find me using an IP account...not the one above...for a couple edits)". After User:Luna Santin did a checkuser, it turned out to be a sockpuppeteer with many different accounts, though none were blocked and the matter was archived.

I was not punished as I am now then for using an IP to make edits, because it wasn't then nor now necessary as my main account was not part of a block of any kind. This is no more than my reverting vandalism from a user, coming to my main account to continue to revert that vandalism and not at anytime covering up the IP account. This is punishment, short and simple.

I readily admit I use IP User:67.163.125.98, no one else can use it since it is a static IP. I would be open to having a template posted on my IP's talk page saying that I am using that IP to make small edits (corrections, vandalism revision and such) as I do not wish to be apart of the politics and annoying drama or Wikipedia, I just wish to work, which it took me awhile to even do that. There are many pages that I have worked very hard to get into good order and I wish to keep them that way, even if it is by a lowly IP account.

I ask that my IP account be unblocked, User:Piano non troppo admonished for taking a vandalism revert war to SPI and myself left alone. That is all I ask. Everything about me is in the open, this is essentially users I pissed off during my main account days wishing to see me completely blocked and run off, in short, punished. This is not allowed and the users in question should be immediately told that. Thank you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unblocked after consultation with other admins about this. I wasn't aware that a user could use IPs to edit in this fashion. Apparently it was a bad block on my part, and I'll have to admit to having made an error here. Please accept my apologies. MuZemike 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) We all make mistakes, no hard feelings from me :)  Take Care...Neutralhomer (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock case
Thanks. I knew that something smelled fishy about all of this in regard to the user who filed the sockpuppet case, I just didn't realize how involved it was. I've come across one or two of the related sock accounts in the past. I have one question that is bugging me and maybe you can shed some light on it. Although technically, Sift&Winnow did not violate WP:SOCK, he nevertheless was deceptive by not revealing he had made the IP posts that I thought were by Tre=poi and then continued to post to the case, essentially attempting to egg it on for three days. He never once intimated that he was the IP and was apparently quite comfortable with letting me be subjected to a needless and unwarranted sockpuppet accusation. Had I realized the filing party was actually an already blocked sockmaster, it would have totally explained his/her suspicion that the IP was used to "hound" him. It was paranoia for a different reason, but he was bold at that. Anyway, though Sift&Winnow was not socking, he was being - something not above board. It certainly puts him on the "grain of salt" side of the equation regarding trust. Should any issues result going forward with him, what does one call this and how in the spirit of basic Wikipedia guidelines does this fall? Oh, and I noticed you deleted all of the articles that Tre=poi created except for Charles Johnston (captive of Native Americans). I wondered about that one. I will nominate the small number of redirect pages that were made that redirect to the now deleted articles. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything that ItsLassieTime and his endless socks created is subject to deletion. (There is further discussion of this on Brandon's talk page.) Sift&Winnow, if not another sock, might have been naive but hopefully has learned some things from this process. One thing it might have learned is the "Plaxico" principle that ILT itself has still not learned, despite how things went down last April when the initial ILT frenzy occurred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that LaVidaLoca was previously accused of being a sock of Wildhartlivie, back in July or so. It's always fun to be falsely accused of sockpuppetry. It's even more fun when the accuser turns out to be a banned user, although that was not the case in July. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To tell you people the truth, I had no idea that this would end up being ItsLassieTime when I recommended to Brandon that CU be run. All I knew that the IP belonged to somebody, I didn't know what type of shenanigans was going on here, and, frankly, the back-and-forth banter was driving me crazy – which was why I asked CU to put an end to it. Personally, I was shocked when I heard the result.
 * I should have deleted all creations by the socks (the majority of them being non-free images) per G5; I tried to be as careful as I could be to not delete those which I thought had some significant contributions by others (and no, adding categories, stub-sorting, or otherwise minor edits do not count), which was why I left a couple of pages undeleted. As last time, I left a list of those deleted pages (on the SPI case and also an WP:AN) for full transparency. MuZemike 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Sift&Winnow not disclosing his IP, I don't blame him for not doing so. It's rather private information to give out the IP you're editing from. MuZemike 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It fits the ILT profile, although it could fit other abusive editors as well. Regarding the IP, it's best to either edit from an IP all the time or from a registered user all the time, as switching back and forth is a deceptive practice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I fairly much quit editing after the first sock case and didn't intend to return, even though I like to work here. I returned to work for the fall bulb sales season and when it ended I started editing again and I must say, it is no fun when you get caught in the middle of something like this. Something felt so wrong about all of the accusation, but I never realized there would be that prolific of an involvement. I apologize for the banter, I just felt like I needed to redirect the comments to the salient issue. I will post the other article for deletion as created by a known sock unless there is an objection. It's more skirting the issue of notability far more than the other articles. I appreciate the comment about Sift&Winnow not disclosing his IP, except he was willing to let me "hang" as well as stick around to encourage and watch it, while telling me to assume good faith. To me, that was more deceptive than editing from both, especially considering that someone else was being raked over the coals for it. Eeps. Anyway, thanks for your views and back to that new granddaughter and her first Thanksgiving weekend. LaVidaLoca (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you wish. I mean, another editor came in there and made a couple of different edits, so that looked a hairy borderline as far as G5 is concerned. MuZemike 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He raises a good point - how was S&W allowed to get away with that shenanigan? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO blocking would only be counterproductive here. Anyways, I've asked him why he used that IP in the way he did on his talk page. It looks like Sift&Winnow is in pretty good standing (i.e. no blocks, contribs look good, no bad run-ins, etc.); there has to be some other reason (other than abuse or deception) behind this. MuZemike 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he stonewalls and won't answer, that would undermine his credibility of "good standing". If it's a sensitive matter, he should send you an e-mail on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if the "various culprits" turn out to be a single entity, a master-puppet-master with a grand scheme to take over the entire site through disinformation, the encouragement of bottom-feeding drama-mongers such as Bugs, and a ruthless plan to drive off all of the productive members through chaos, and to rid the rest of the literate through the propagation of run-on sentences and hyper-hyphen usage. Ann Mathgeix (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

← Uh, who are you, and where'd you come from? MuZemike 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's another Pioneercourthouse and/or ItsLassieTime sock, using an anagram of Axmann Eight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I say and/or because who it specifically is, is not very important. RBI. WP:DENY. etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Risker as a sock of Pioneercourthouse and blizzocked. MuZemike 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger. I wonder if it's time for another "sweep" to look for PCH sleeper accounts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original case, I blocked this one as an obvious sock:. Wknight94 <sup style="color: blue;">talk  12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good block. There has to be some underlying IP or range somewhere, but I don't think CU found it. MuZemike 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

JTSalazar
That was fast! I reverted the EVHS page back to the last edit before his, but he created a new article, 2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team. What do you think, should I take it to AfD or just go ahead and do a G5 speedy deletion? Lady of  Shalott  04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it had some edits by others, so G5 wouldn't apply. MuZemike 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - thanks! Lady  of  Shalott  04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that, I mean some more significant edits besides minor edits, stub-sorting, etc. MuZemike 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: I started Articles for deletion/2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team earlier. Lady  of  Shalott  06:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI/ILOVEmusicAPPRECIATION
Hello there and thanks for the redirect although I think it must be reverted back because Hunglow12 registered on Nov. 30 while ILOVEmusicAPPRECIATION registered on Dec. 1. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirected back. Thank you for letting me know. MuZemike 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tony Capucci
I don't see the logic of merging an article about someone who fails WP:PORNBIO into a list of porn performers. If they are so-to-speak proven to be not notable, why would we include them there? (I understand that the list in question is already littered with red links, but I'm trying to get that changed.) On a more procedural note, the list itself is up for deletion, so the merge may be inappropriate. Can you take another look at your close? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of editors have indicated that a merge is possible (at least Benjiboi gave a decent argument in support of a merge). I gave them the benefit of the doubt that it can be done. MuZemike 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see DRV here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
The IP whom you warned seconds ago has already vandalised Hate Crime after your message to him. He has chosen not to heed the warning. Evlekis (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 6 months (schoolblock). MuZemike 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote
The first anonymous quote on your user page sounded rather intriguing so I did a quick search for it and found it. Unless you were purposely censoring it's author ~  ς ح   д r   خ є  ~ 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for that. No censorship was intended. MuZemike 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POV sock
Hi MuZemike, thank you for doing such a good job blocking disruptive socks. I want to let you know that your time and work is highly appreciated by those of us who have had to deal with them. I have another favor to ask of you. You previously blocked User:GoonerDP and his sock User:Comancheros. Well now he/she's back making a slew of extreme POV edits:    I don't have a particular interest or expertise in these topics but it's clear to me that its highly inappropriate and offensive to say the least. Indeed, many repeated warnings in the past have not had any effect at all on his/her behavior and have come to nil. What do you think should be done about this? Nirvana888 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as sock puppetry is concerned, there's nothing to do unless he's using socks again. And I think the NPOV noticeboard mainly concerns with NPOV issues with articles as opposed to NPOV issues with editors. For no better choice of a venue I can think of to voice this concern, try posting at WP:ANI. MuZemike 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Thorne (27bslash6) Article
Thankyou for locking the article temporarily. Like the page on Maddox, this article needs to be locked. There are too many people, one troll in particular, adding personal comments of a degrading nature based purely on the fact they dislike the person highlighted. While I did not create this article, I have edited it without any bias towards the subject. David Thorne is certainly an interesting character that has caused some ruckus on the internet of late but this article needs to remain fact based without slander or personal attacks on him. Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho
You have indef'ed this user, but regardless of the email privilege, this priority can be abused by him as a part of continuing the legal threat issue. Maybe you should consider revoking the email privilege as well? Thanks, - Boeing7107isdelicious 08:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is he causing abuse via email? If not, then it needs to remain enabled, in the case he actually does retract his legal threat. Big fat chance, however. MuZemike 08:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah. Just preventing the risk of him abusing the feature. Sure it is. I remembered the day he actually threatened to call some federal institutions to explain his comment on Jimbo's talk page. - Boeing7107isdelicious 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
Shouldn't the redirect of the Mr Hicks 111 = NoCal100 sockpuppet investigation be given as this rather than the one you provided in the edit summary, namely ? Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. MuZemike 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey, thanks for commenting in my RfA. Rather than cluttering there, I thought I would just ask. What issue do you have exactly with Question 4, so I'm aware?  Grsz 11  19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to take another look at that, because I can see where I may have misread something in that response. MuZemike 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the Q4 part out. I'm afraid I have to stay with my "oppose" though. Sorry, MuZemike 19:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking, and I understand your edit summary. Thanks,  Grsz 11  19:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your review of Future Ads
Hello MyZemike. Last month, I had created an entry for Future Ads which you had deleted, restored, then moved for userfication. I have made some revisions to the entry, and worked with 2 other editors who had also been involved. Those 2 editors said that the entry looks good now, and should be ready for posting, but I wanted to check in with you as well. I would love to get your feedback on the revised entry. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks so much in advance. I appreciate it. The entry can be found at: User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads.

Also, the latest comments from the other 2 editors can be seen at the bottom of my talk page: User talk:Mwebbcom.

Thanks again so much! Mwebbcom (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized I spelled your user name wrong. My apologies MuZemike. Mwebbcom (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'll take a look at it when I can. I'll be fairly busy this weekend, in the case I don't get to it tomorrow. MuZemike 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
Hey there, this IP sock of User:Montaj13 is editing again here (another Dynasty article she likes), would you mind blocking? Thx.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 3 months. If any other IPs start up again, let me know. MuZemike 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: your talk page slogan(?) ^^
Thanks for reminding me :-) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Connecting two Recent SPIs
Could I ask you to consider reopening the case at Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey/Archive? In the short time since you closed it, the account has reaactivated and been blocked as a puppet of NoCal100 and several others collowing this other investigationSockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive. We therefore now have a checkuser trail to compare Bree and the two Canadian IP addresses he/she used with the canadian-named account and its identified puppet master who has an interest in Canadian geography, not to mention edit wars to do with the Arab-Israeli dispute. Given that we now know that CM was part of an active puppet farm at the time of the case, I should think it is worth asking the checkuser involved in confirming CM as part of a puppet farm to check the Bree accoutn too.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User page
Hello MuZemike, I am a user from swedish Wikipedia and I really must say that I like the design of your user page. May I ask if it´s ok to borrow it if I should trie to make my own one look better some day? Kind regards, Höstblomma (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and steal it if you like. It's not that difficult – it's basically a combination of usage of wikitables and CSS. Maybe you can improve on what I have :-) MuZemike 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Steal it..? ;-) Ok, if you say so.. :-) Thanks! Höstblomma (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Harry
I have to fly to the UK from Austria tomorrow for a week, and I wondered if there was anything more to do on the article?--andreasegde (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you addressed everything, then I don't think there is. I just got back from being away for a couple of days myself, so I still have to look at the article. Thanks, MuZemike 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind helping
Hi MuZemike. I need help dealing with this user and since you closed and blocked the IP's for one the SPI cases for this user, 23prootie, I thought maybe you could help out. I reported this user yesterday,, which is part of the range you ranged blocked for this user. This edit yesterday made from 119.95.9.201 was 23prootie by the IPs and the same behavior from the SPI you closed. This user,, basically reinstated what they did yesterday with this edit. Would you mind blocking or semi-protecting the talk page of Talk:Asian American? I know talk pages are rarely semi-protected, but it seems quite clear that 23prootie will continue to block evade. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 23:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * IP switched to this IP, . Elockid  ( Talk·Contribs ) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ on this issue, this user who is attacking me appears to be a control freak and has an issue on owning articles. I am distraught by their constant badgering and I request that you disregard their request.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite hard to believe that is all coincidence as you put it. First off, you edit the same articles as 23prootie. Secondly, you voted for the same people as 23prootie and reintroduced the same subjects. Thirdly, you're obviously not a new user because one, you have knowledge of Wikipedia policies and two and how to Wikilink and know where to go. This is highly unlikely behavior as a new user. The edits and the sockpuppetry I filed previously is enough to say that you are either a sock of 23prootie or editing on their behalf. Elockid  ( Talk·Contribs ) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Help
Elockid appears to be trying to own the Asian American talk page and is accusing me of being 23prootie. I feel offended and saddened by that gesture. I do not understand why there is controversy there. I only thought that I was just a passer-by trying to help. Could you tell this Elockid to leave me alone. I believe that he is quite annoying.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Britisher
The user has requested unblocking. The reason for their block is socking, though the SPI report doesn't show a checkuser or details on how you arrived at the conclusion. Could you comment on the talk page on how you came to the conclusion so the request can be handled? Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  07:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for MuZemike obviously, but I can elaborate further on the evidence. Please see the now deleted history of GBNI. After initially trying to create a one sentence article about Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britisher then attempted to turn it into a disambiguation page using Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Girls' Brigade Northern Ireland, which in itself was a redirect to the main Girls' Brigade article created by Britisher. This kind of pointless disambiguation using redirects is Mr Taz down to a T, see for example the history of Separatism in the United Kingdom where he creates a disambiguation page made almost exclusively of redirects he had just created. Then there's this edit where apparently "Great Britain and Ireland" (which would be GBI if such an acronym was in use at all) is added to the GNI disambiguation page. Mr Taz had a long history of nonsensical redirects and causing problems with disambiguation pages, many of them were deleted so I am having trouble providing diffs. Britisher's comment of "i am on wikipedia to show Great Britains place the UK and in the world" in his unblock request is also similar to something Mr Taz said on his talk page while blocked, sadly the history of that page is also deleted so I cannot provide a diff. O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the details. After looking over the now deleted page for the sock master, I'm satisfied that this was an excellent block. Well done. Cheers, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">NJA <em style="color:#63D1F4">(t/ <em style="color:#63D1F4">c)  12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

POV sock
Hi, thanks for your reply. It looks like User:GoonerDP is back with a new sock: User:Crouchingdragon090. Check out these diffs:   Nirvana888 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't gotten back earlier. Sock indefinitely blocked, sockmaster blocked 1 month. MuZemike 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. And you actually got back quite promptly so no worries. I'll keep an eye on this unhelpful and abusive editor and will let you know if something else comes up. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario vs Donkey Kong Minis March Again.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mario vs Donkey Kong Minis March Again.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI Followup
As a principal in the past SPI related to user JuliaHavey, you might want to check the followup SPI report filed today. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth looking here too. --TraceyR (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still dealing with a bit of fallout from that, and am still convinced that Jackie JP (the one who declared her COI as a Juice Plus marketer up front, and updated an image) was unnecessary collateral damage. The behavioral evidence doesn't really implicate her as a sock puppet of anyone.

Last time I considered unblocking Jackie JP, the discussion was rapidly sidetracked by Julia Havey storming in and making legal threats toward Wikipedia. In fact, having seen Julia Havey's extensive network of sockpuppets, I'm convinced that Julia Havey is the source of basically all our problems with the Juice Plus article -- and that Jackie JP is very unlikely to be Julia Havey. For one thing, Julia Havey doesn't ask to be unblocked, she just shows up with a new IP and a new sockpuppet.

Would it be a problem if I unblocked Jackie JP, and then watched carefully what happens? I'd tell her she has to stay away from any Juice Plus-related edits, even when following WP:COI's recommendations to the letter, until the Julia Havey situation resolves.

rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I already emailed you a while back on that, but if you feel I erred in my judgment, then go ahead. I just hope that this isn't another attempt to try and make the page their own. MuZemike 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to sit out of the current SPI case currently up due to my apparently poor handling of the case; another admin will hopefully look at it in a different view than I have. MuZemike 00:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Ads entry
Hi MuZemike, Thanks again (in advance) for your review of the Future Ads entry. Looking forward to your feeback. User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads. Take care! Mwebbcom (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor corrections to better balance out the tone of the article, but I think it looks acceptable enough for the mainspace, and I moved it back to Future Ads. MuZemike 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much MuZemike. The page looks really great! Thanks again for your help!! I appreciate it. 68.4.4.203 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RE, your "warning"
I removed your warning from my page as it is simply untrue. Please be more careful when accusing people of sockpuppetry in the future. Thanks. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. A CheckUser has confirmed that you have used another account (User:Frvernchanezzz), which I have already blocked. I will block you if you are caught using other accounts again, plain and simple. MuZemike 16:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're wrong (again). So before you reply to me with your bullshit about "CHECKUSER WAS POSITIVE LOLOLOL", sit down, relax, and have a think about it. The only things that your pathetic attempt at harassing someone you don't even know, who has not edited in months, has proven is that you don't understand the concept of universities, and the fact that they have more than one person attending them (shocking revelation, I know). A lot of people make the mistake thinking that a positive CheckUser means they are "proven" to be the same person. This is incorrect. It simply means that in the two weeks prior to the CheckUser being performed, both persons had logged on from the same IP. That is all.

If you persist with this libel against me, I will be forced to take legal action, much like I did in a similar situation back in 2007. The other party thought they couldn't be found over there in Greece, but they were, it went to trial, and the verdict was in my favour.

People make mistakes, and you need to learn to accept it when you've made one. Just take it in stride and move on. This could be a life changing experience for you. Cheers. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S, if your reply is just going to be more false accusations, denial of truth, and just plain old harassment, don't bother. It'll inflame a situation that I'm willing to let rest. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see: WP:ANI. Tim Song (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI on 173.81.182.46‎
Thanks for blocking that user. One question, should I go through and revert all the current "top" edits the anon user has or just leave them be? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's they're incorrect or wrong, then go ahead. Technically, there's no ban in place, so there's no urgent "revert on sight" need here. MuZemike 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted some blatantly wrong ones, most are this "back and forth" changing of things over and over that gets annoying. There is really no rhyme or reason to the anons edits.  What he does for one station page, he doesn't do for another.  It is good that he is blocked.  I will keep an eye out in case he pops up under another IP.  Again...Thanks! - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin intro
Ha. Thanks, for the intro and the laugh. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Norway spiral duplicate articles
It seems I created an article when one already existed. We'll just have to merge them. I was going to add more to the one I wrote, but that will have to wait until tomorrow at least. __meco (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a section at Talk:Norwegian spiral anomaly of 2009 to facilitate discussion as to what the article should be titled. MuZemike 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"12qq" unblock
Hi, Mike. Actually, "12qq" created all the other accounts. I can unblock those as well if leaving them blocked will prevent the original account from contributing. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If he's able to edit right now, then he's not under any autoblock apparently, so we might be OK leaving the blocks as-is. MuZemike 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...except I didn't realize the account was under a sockpuppet investigation. I hit the "last change" link when I saw the new message banner and I didn't see the link to the investigation on the page itself. If you reblock the account as a sock, believe me, I won't accuse you of a wheel war. :) Have a good one; signing off for now.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PolTx
Have you seen the latest SPI? Lady of  Shalott  07:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, just saw it. Looks like CU already did a check and Tiptoety blocked. MuZemike 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You did wrong job.
The singer Goh Eugene does really exist. and there're lots of videos about Goh Eugene on the YouTube and there're lots of viewers and comments from English speaking country. He is famous singer in South Korea, if you search Goh Eugnene's Korean name on every portal or search site of S. Korea, then there'll be photo and profile. Even if Goh Eugene isn't famous in English speaking country but there're many people who're interested in Korean culture and they have right to know 'cause culture represents part of country. i could understand about deletion if Goh Eugene is unfamous, but he is really famous. Just ask Korean people who can speak English or people who can understand Korean, they just know who Goh Eugene is. additionally Goh Eugene's Korean name is 고유진. Type this on the Yahoo! Korea, then it'll verify that. i hope you decide delibrately, and would you tell me how to restore article? thank you. Gmlcks101 (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Bill Harry (sorry Bill)
I thank thee kindly, and very much as well. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Outcome on sock puppetry report on User:Darth Vader100
I didn't get the reason of the outcome. Are you implying that him being currently blocked (temporarily) does somehow give him immunity? Would the outcome be different if I filed it while he was not blocked? Or is it that a user with two sock puppets, all three accounts seemingly dedicated to vandalism, doesn't even deserve a notice? I would have expected a permanent block on the remaining account, and could have done with a bit less perhaps, but this is not what I would have expected at all. --uKER (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm implying. The blocking policy says that blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive. The last time he has used either sock was four months ago. There's little or nothing gained here by all of a sudden extending a block to indefinite for stuff going on that long ago. The current one-month block placed for disruption should be plenty right now; if he socks again, then we can consider extending to indef. MuZemike 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the clarification. --uKER (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Goomba
Seeing as how you have some interest in the Mario series, I'm pretty much done with my Goomba revival. Discussion goin' on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cook or Be Cooked
Just a note, that was already nom'd for DYK and added to Queue 2 for update a bit later. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. My bad. MuZemike 01:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BlueSal
HI there. You blocked user:Islaosh for being a sockpuppet in October. I believe this blocked user is back again as user:BlueSal Has all the hallmarks Cheers Vexorg (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. MuZemike 17:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) I'll keep an eye out for more puppets Vexorg (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Orijentolog sock puppet - please block
Please also block IP 93.142.147.100 - see these edits:
 * : "STOP WITH YOUR DIRTY JEWISH LIES!!!! BASTARD!!!"
 * : "I don't care about Jewish threats."

Yours truly.Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Already blocked by another admin. An admin also semi-protected Quds Day, as well. MuZemike 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion problem
Hi!

I filed a report for CheckUser attention at Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx‎ but it has still not been transcluded onto WP:SPI. Would you mind quickly checking my posting to see if I'm maybe doing something wrong?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have just transcluded that one manually. User:SPCUClerkbot just went down within the past 12 hours or so due to some significant problems over at toolserver.org. MuZemike 18:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

regarding deletion of balls by picasso page
hi, this page is about a club(a respected one at that) in one of the best colleges in india. i do not see why this was deleted speedily any queries or discrepancies regarding this page can be mailed to me

R.Vignesh Rv 21071989 (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to echo what was said on Talk:Balls By Picasso, in that merely claiming by word-of-mouth of its importance is not enough. You need to show that has been some coverage of this club independently through reliable secondary sources independent of the club's own site (that means, no Internet forums, blogs, etc.). Such sources would concretely show importance, which is what we need. Thank you, MuZemike 08:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 sock
Hi again, is likely another sock of  who has already been given a long-term block. Both accounts have the exact same editing interests and same MO in the way they leave messages. I can explain further if necessary. Once again your help is invaluable. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at them. You think you can go a bit more into detail? I mean, he edits on Global city, which hasn't been edited much by the previous socks. MuZemike 16:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Sorry I didn't give too much detail because I was short on time. My judgment is based on several key pieces of evidence. First, edited the same articles as, a rather abusive and egregious sock of . Notice that they both edited Germany, Global city and Berlin and have supported the opinions of each other on the talk pages creating the impression of support when there is not. This concern was first raised by |User Stor stark7. The same sort of situation occurred on Talk:Great power and archives which dragged on for a several months to the great dismay and irritation of several of us. Both accounts also leave tell-tale evidence by leaving Talk messages with similar characteristics: both misspelt "sovereignty" as "souvereignty"  , both invariably use ´ as opposed to ' as an apostrophe.   Both accounts have claimed to and in also in all likelihood edit from an IP in Berlin. On a cursory look it seemed only plausible at first but after closer scrutiny and investigation, I believe it passes the duck test. Either that or there are a lot of coincidences. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Blocked. Lear 21's block is now indefinite. MuZemike 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks and best wishes. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:darkred; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

MisterWiki is wishing you Happy Holidays! MisterWiki  talk   contribs  wishes you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with all of your family, spread love during this times!

I (MisterWiki) created a video specially for you, wishing you the best for this christmas time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOAvuNbt1o

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ninja Gaiden 2
Responded on my talk page. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)
Hi, I just have a few questions on the outcome of this AFD. Your closing remarks were "Most of the reasons for retention here seem to be more explicit and outweigh the reasons for deletion here." The reasons for keeping the article were that he received widespread press attention. While there are reliable sources, these alone do not confer notability. This seems a very clear case of a biography failing WP:BIO1E. The "widespread" press attention (and it wasn't that widespread, it was a minor event in the Troubles) related to the event, not the person, who is only associated with this one event. Some background detail on him is available, but it falls well short of the "extensive biographies" expected if an article is to pass BIO1E. BIO1E also requires that the attention the subject receives after the event to be unrelated to the event. Every press article which mentions him is about the event, not the person. So again, he fails BIO1E. So I think the detailed reasons given to delete far outweigh those to keep, and seem 100% in line with policy. So I'd be grateful if you could go into your decision in a bit more detail than already given, and explain how BIO1E doesn't apply here. Cheers. Stu  ’Bout ye!  21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First off (more of an aside), I don't think there was a rough consensus for deletion there, but then again, I'm not trying to treat AFD like a vote. With that out of the way, I felt DGG made a compelling argument for retention, and a few others suggested that there are indeed sources out there to provide enough significant coverage required to meet ONEEVENT. The arguments for deletion suggested otherwise. At a minimum, neither side came out on top, but I felt that the "keep" side made better arguments than the "delete" side. Hence, at a minimum there was "no consensus", but I personally saw it more leaning towards "keep" myself and hence has closed as such. Hope that clarifies things a bit more. MuZemike 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response, but I still disagree. The fact that DGG though O'Brien was a suicide bomber aside, his rationale completely contradicts BIO1E. He is mentioned only because of the event, not separate to it. Yes people are linked with events as DGG says, but being linked with a (possibly) notable event does not automatically make the person notable. Jeanne Boleyn used the example of Mark David Chapman as a person only notable for one event who has an article. The difference between Chapman and O'Brien is clear. Detailed and extensive biographies have been written about Chapman. All we know about O'Brien is he worked in a bakery, played sport, and what brought him to the republican movement. This is the difference between passing and failing BIO1E. I agree in terms of a simple vote there was no consensus. But I have to admit that I'm surprised you thought the keep rationale was stronger. I'll take it to deletion review in the next couple of days. Cheers. Stu   ’Bout ye!  23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I too am perplexed by this closure. If you have kept this article based on promises of more sources to come, without actually coming yet, and on the strength of DGG's argument that Wikipedia should confer automatic notability to all suicide bombers (and note that O'Brien wasn't even a suicide bomber), which doesn't reflect community consensus on these types of BLPs at all, then I plan to put this up for deletion review. This decision sets an extremely dodgy precedent in the field of Irish Republican POV on Wikipedia, and given the fact there is still no article on the actual bombing, but this decision declares that the bomber is apparently deemed notable, having done nothing else with his life except (accidentally) blowing it up and understandably making the papers for doing so, makes no sense to me at all. If there was no consensus to delete the biography (and that is debatable, given some keeper's inability to distinguish between the person and the event), there was definitely more than enough consensus to merge this content into an article on the actual event, per BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, BLP doesn't apply to the non-living. Second, if users wish to discuss or do a merge, then that can always be done outside AFD; it doesn't need blessing from an admin on a deletion discussion to do so. MuZemike 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on. Do you really think nobody would mention WP:ONEEVENT if DGG went and proposed on WP:NOTE that all suicide bombers should be automatically notable? And merge is a valid Afd outcome when there is not a keep consensus. As an aside, not that it matters compared to those two more important points, but if you think a merge would be possible after this decision apparently declaring O'Brien notable, you really don't know the editors involved. They will fight tooth and nail to oppose any merger quoting, or rather misquoting, your Afd keep rationale until the cows come home. It wouldn't even be worth the hassle to propose it, despite clear consensus, so in that manner, the precedent is set here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The closing admin's job is to determine the consensus from a deletion discussion, not to come up with an alternate solution that wasn't readily discussed or brought up in the discussion. Otherwise, the admin might as well just !vote in the deletion discussion. MuZemike 20:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With that said deletion review is that way, which is where you should head if you're still upset over my decision or read of the deletion discussion. MuZemike 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll do that when I get time, no worries. Every single reply here has left me even more bemused than the last, topped off with the idea you are amazingly now claiming a merge/rename solution was not present in the debate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

copy of deleted article
Please, send me a copy of Comparison of portable platforms, so I can see the name of the programs and attempt to list them in List of portable software as bundles of software. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ User:Enric Naval/Comparison of portable platforms. MuZemike 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There was no need to userfy, I just wanted too peek to see the names of the programs. I have already added the program names to List of portable software. Could you move back the article to its original location and delete it again? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The One & Only Fools and Horses
Sorry I got that spi in the wrong place, it's been a while.

Please could you move User:Pabmeista/Ardwick Association Football Club back into mainspace? It's being discussed at Articles for deletion/Ardwick Athletic F.C. but has been moved into userspace - seems simplest to move it back while the AfD runs rather than open a MfD. Or you could just delete it! pablo hablo. 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved back into the mainspace. Make sure the AFD, which is already up, is posted in the right spot. MuZemike 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Umdgrad88
Hello, I have a question about conclusions on both the above case and the subsequent case the editor brought against me, Sockpuppet investigations/Omarcheeseboro.

I don't know if you just thought this was a petty dispute, or because two accounts in Umdgrad88's case was stale, or whatever, but I am a bit curious about a few things. First of all, I believe in the case of Umdgrad88, I displayed clear suggestions of sockpuppetry, and I would like to know why you came to your conclusion. I'm familiar with WP:SOSP and feel there are strong signs.

Also, regarding the warning about edit warring on Maryland Terrapins... I'm not sure if you took a look at the history of that page. I have been in a few disputes over content, but in two cases have brought the issue to the talk page before it escalated, and used wp:30 both times. After there was consensus, I made edits based on that, as explained in my edit summaries. When Umdgrad88's last edits introduced sources, I cleaned up the parts that were unsourced and let the rest of his edits stay. Now, I don't really expect you to examine the page so carefully, but for obvious reasons, I don't believe that kind of warning was necessary.

Perhaps I would better understand your reasoning if there was more of an explanation about your thoughts on the sockpuppet case as opposed to a warning about editing.

I hate to say this, but I do wonder if UMD's case would've been treated differently if he didn't respond with the case vs. me.

Thank you for your time. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of things why I chose not to issue blocks at this time. There is that possibility that these could be different people; I mean, anyone can locate the "undo" button and undo edits. The first user commented on your talk page one time, the second user didn't even comment to you, and the third did to a significant extent. The two older accounts are stale, and I couldn't find any other IPs that might have fit the same types of edits on Maryland Terrapins, so CheckUser wouldn't have came up with anything.
 * Next, neither of the two older accounts have edited, so even if Umdgrad88 was even one of the two older accounts, there is no overlap between them. That means he may have abandoned what he was using and went to a new account; I didn't see any scrutiny that needed to be avoided, so by policy that would be fine.
 * I am going to have some words with Umdgrad88 about the retaliatory SPI case filed against you, as that was clearly in retaliation to your SPI case. MuZemike 00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your follow-up. Those are good points. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/EZW
Hey, thanks for taking care of that. I appreciate your work-- Glenfarclas (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you just?
Did you just get rickrolled? :)-- Sky Attacker    the legend reborn...  09:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Block/The Legendary Sky Attacker → remember that :-) MuZemike 09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion
Not sure if there's anything that can be done about and  socks of Lear 21 who have been leaving odious messages on our talks and user page and circumventing the blocks. Thanks! Nirvana888 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if he's IP-hopping, then blocking would surmount to playing Whack-A-Mole. If you or Phoenix79 need userpage protection, let me know. MuZemike 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Doughnuthead
Are you sure that they're one and the same? Yes, he "admitted" it here, but when I said this the IP vanished to vandalise. Is this confirmed by a Checkuser or were you just taking the comment that I deleted in that diff at face value? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your songThe bird's seeds 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that most of the edits from Doughnuthead were on yours and Ninjalemming's userpages, I thought it looked clear to me. Or perhaps you think something else is going on here? MuZemike 20:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doughnuthead claimed he was retiring from Wikipedia, which was why I doubted it was him. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your songThe bird's seeds 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tfoxworth
Did you notice that when, in response to complaints of two longtime editors, you blocked one of the two addresses complained of, in the next minute Tfoxworth used the IP you left intact to yet again vandalize the articles cited in the sockpuppetry complaint? Why is it allowed for him to so easily vandalize and mock on Wikipedia (by figuring out that all he has to do is space out intervals between vandalism), and so laborious and difficult for those who monitor and correct the vandalized articles to obtain adequate relief? How many times does he get to vandalize before "permanent ban" means just that? FactStraight (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The other IP is now blocked, also. I thought he left that IP for the one that I originally blocked in that case. I didn't realize he was going to use that previous IP again. Thanks for letting me know. MuZemike 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tfoxworth is now back as User:24.56.30.43, editing the same articles as before, and making false accusations of "stalking". Please take definitive action. Thankyou. FactStraight (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked. I don't know what good it's going to do, though. –MuZemike 08:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Doughnuthead, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Doughnuthead
Since you are the blocking admin for Doughnuthead, he has now started abusing multiple accounts using IP's to evade block, may I suggest an indefinite block for Doughnuthead? Also I created a SPI to maybe get rangeblocks issued as well. Thank you. Momo san Gespräch 16:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. I'm not sure what good it's going to do, as he's IP-hopping like a jackrabbit on ranges which are not blockable. –MuZemike 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured that, looks like we'll have to play whack-a-mole with these IP's I guess.  Momo san  Gespräch 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: SPI
Thanks very much for your intercession there. There's a lot to be said for an elegantly common-sense solution, I think. - Vianello (Talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have ended up reqeusting CheckUser as another user has observed additional activity through the tools provided. –MuZemike 08:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hi

You recently dealt with a case that I reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Ln of x. I notice that Checkuser was declined in this instance. The reason I requested Checkuser in this instance was mainly because when I last reported a sockpuppet of Ln of x, I was sure that a rangeblock was being considered and I would've thought that would've prevented him from registering another account for good? I'm just wondering, in what instances should Checkuser be requested? --5 albert square (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. There was nothing in the case (I didn't look at the archive) which provided a further reason for a check. I can endorse one if you still wish. –MuZemike 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the CU I just pinged is telling me there are no other sleepers, so I don't think there's much else here to do. –MuZemike 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's my fault for forgetting to mention it in my notes :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 albert square (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Don't know if I'll get to it, as I'll be an WikiBreak starting tomorrow morning, but I hope I have made myself heard minimally at the least. As I have indicated before, de-adminship procedures will work themselves out as they should be; it doesn't take that much to set something into place. –MuZemike 08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Persian-speakers of Iran
Hello!

I believe that the wrong decision was made not to delete the article Persian-speakers of Iran.

It is not a majority voting process, but the validity of arguments that counts. Did you consider the validity of my arguments?

Did you take the time to compare the article with the content of Persian people? I strongly believe that it's obvious the article Persian-speakers of Iran is a content fork for the article Persian people, the content is identical but shorter.

I urge you to spend some time to compare the two.

Danz23 (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The arguments basically came down to "acceptable content fork" versus "improper POV-fork". I didn't see either side come up on top when I looked at the arguments in that one. –MuZemike 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. I can see the argument on top of the nomination, it states; "The article is a content fork of the article 'Persian people' created to surpass POV guidelines ".

Is there anything called an "acceptle content fork"? Have you compared the two? If so do you think that it is a fork or not?

Danz23 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you would answer my question. I am considering nominateing the article for deletation again because my argument has not been adressed.

Danz23 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier as I was sidetracked. There are acceptable content forks, provided they are not used to push a certain POV. In the AFD, there wasn't any consensus that this was an inappropriate POV fork, thus warranting deletion. I'm sorry, but I still endorse my closure of the AFD. You can go to deletion review if you still disagree. –MuZemike 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated
Hello, MuZemike, happy holidays. I don't know whether you would be active from now given your wiki-break notice on the top, but if you can spare a time to look into Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka, sockpuppeter who has been block-evading for about 2 years. I wonder why this case is not shown in the main page of WP:SPI. I've filed the defunct WP:SSP, and WP:RFCU many times to detect sockpuppeters, but have not done since the change. So your help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to decline the CU request as all the registered accounts are stale, and nothing gets accomplished CU-wise by checking only IPs. I'll be leaving in the morning and won't be back for several days, so I'm afraid somebody else might have to look at it. –MuZemike 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden A-class request
I've left some comments for you on the talk page. — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"> Vantine84  ( t  –  c )   06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I won't be able to get to it until sometime Sunday. –MuZemike 07:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit of talk about your actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments Fred Talk 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alamanth
Based on his editing history I have unblocked. The edits for which he was blocked were reasonable. Fred Talk 22:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

War room
I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now don't let me think you're some kind of deviated prevert and that I have found out about your prevertion, and you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts. –MuZemike 08:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you so much for your assistance. I really like the manner in which you communicate which truly helps new/novice contributors, like me. I have re-written the article on Alfredo Corvino and also tried to start incorporating some of the Wikipedia form and style. I know that I have a great many things to learn, and I appreciate your efforts to teach me.

If and when you have the opportunity, would it be possible for you to review and critique my article and help me make my submission, when appropriate?

Happy New Years! J Seamanjg (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Azukimonaka and 青鬼よし
I raised a question regarding 青鬼よし --Caspian blue 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka
 * Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka
 * Thank you for looking into the case. Given the sockpuppeter's persistent block-evading for over 2 years (likely 4 years per other prior sockpuppetry cases), I guess this is not the last time to see the troll. I accumulated his chronicle to its talk page though. Anyway, happy new year! --Caspian blue 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grapesoda22
has taken up undoing the redirect. Although the IP looks quite different from, they are both AT&T, and both geolocate to Wisconsin (Milwaukee, and its suburb New Berlin). I'm sure these are the same editor, and 90% certain that it's Grapesoda22/IDALNLGHAMTFPDOA editing anonymously.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and endorsed for CU to see what we can get out of this. –MuZemike 16:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delisted sockpuppet case
Hi -- can I ask why you delisted the WalterMitty sockpuppet case I filed, without any apparent disposition? I can't tell if what you did was procedural, or if you evaluated the behaviorial evidence and found it wanting. I'd appreciate any information you can provide. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, NuclearWarfare has relisted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I probably accidentally delisted it when I went through all those other cases the other day. My bad. –MuZemike 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anovoula
Sorry to bug you but since you closed out the case, I didn't know who else to contact. It looks like there's another sock in this case. Should I file another SPI? Thanks.  Pinkadelica ♣ 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

L2 heading on SPI cases
Hi MuZemike,

I filled in the page title box when I filed the SPI and it seems to have come out as an L2 heading. Just flagging this since a user would normally assume that an empty text box in a form needs to be filled in.

Best wishes, Bksimonb (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just leave the text box blank next time. Though I admit that it should (hopefully it's possible) be fixed, as I have that setting in "My preferences" that warns me when there's a blank field, such as an edit summary or, in this case, a blank heading box. –MuZemike 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of HughieAndHagred
Hello. The HughieAndHagred family appears to have spawned another sockpuppet - same pattern of Paul Carlin/Kyle Falconer attacks. What is the correct procedure for raising this? Should this be listed at Sockpuppet_investigations/HughieAndHagred or a new case listed? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * and now an IP with a similar pattern: .--Michig (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll surely look into it tomorrow. –MuZemike 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. –MuZemike 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Michig (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another sock has appeared: .--Michig (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-submitted the SPI case myself and self-endorsed for a Checkuser to look at. –MuZemike 08:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, can you jump on IRC (w-en-spi) for a bit, I need to ask you a few things... thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are several other socks/probable socks, most are already blocked:,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , but there are also a few that aren't: , , .--Michig (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody except User:Teaboyracer, User:GerryAllan, and User:EverCrumbling are . User:Former user 7 is already blocked, but not yet stale. –MuZemike 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

DJ Lotu5 / Micha Cardenas deletion review
Hello, I would like to ask you to reconsider your deletion of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Lotu5

although it should probably be renamed Micha Cardenas. A current google news search yields 418 hits.

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=micha+cardenas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.188.234 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it (though I did weakly supported deletion). You may want to ask User:MBisanz, who did delete the article. –MuZemike 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow, two barnstars in one week, a record. A winner is me! Thanks, –MuZemike 21:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe someday you'll get 3 barnstars in less than 24 hours... ;P -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of TheGraduate2012
Hello MuZemike. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Ron h jones  (Talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I contacted a CheckUser to double-check, and J.delanoy says it's ✅. –MuZemike 22:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I put it on hold then. :-)  Ron h jones  (Talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou
Much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Gigogag
Easily another one. This user requested Gigogag be unblocked, talked to himself on his talk page and edits the same articles as Gigogag.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. PACE-Brantley Hall School semi-protected for two weeks. –MuZemike 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, MuZemike. Thank you for closing Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer). Will you expand your closing rationale to summarize the primary arguments made for retention and the primary ones made for deletion? This will be helpful if the article is renominated for AfD in the future. For me, the concerns advanced by Slp1 were fairly compelling because after reading the debate, I was unable to see where sources were provided to refute his WP:BLP1E assertion; few of the contributors provided sources &mdash; most made bald assertions the subject met GNG but did not provide links to the sources, while others provided sources that were mainly about the book controversy. I think a "no consensus" close would be a more accurate reading of the debate but will not object if you believe that the "keep" side was stronger. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably should have also added that most of the "keep" side also asserted that he met WP:AUTHOR. Anyways, I'm not sure how else I can elaborate on my close as I tried to make that clear on the AFD page. There were also a couple of suggestions for renaming, which may not have been explored to enough detail. Now, if the article's creator (Hoolio9690) can verify that he is Rodriguez (via OTRS, of course), then it might be deleted per WP:BLP. Otherwise, as you said, the article was going to be kept as there was a lack of consensus at the very least. –MuZemike 07:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the subject was Hoolio9690, too, until told me that they are different people. Several on the "keep" side did believe that Rodriguez passes WP:AUTHOR (BrownHairedGirl, IP69.226.103.13, and DGG) but a fair number said that Rodriguez fails it (Multixfer, DoriSmith (who said "keep"), and Xxanthippe). I still don't see much of a consensus in the debate. Would mention the rename proposal in your close? I think that may be the best course of action, since a BLP that consists mainly of a controversy section is not very palatable. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the rename information to the debate. I've opened a talk page discussion#Requested move about the move. Cunard (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Sounds good. –MuZemike 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * says on Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) that my rename discussion is a "backhanded attempt at deletion". What are your views on this? Is my wish that Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) be deleted after the page is moved to Man of Ashes controversy an attempt to circumvent the consensus at the AfD? Please comment on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, equating a move to a deletion is rather an absurd way to put it, especially when everything is preserved; the same goes with many move discussions. Furthermore, I cannot see how a closing admin is supposed to interpret a move consensus and a deletion (or lack thereof) consensus at the same time especially when the whole crux of deletion discussion are to determine whether or not deletion is warranted. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but also, if nothing is technically getting deleted, then I don't see how this isn't anything more than a standard naming/content dispute. Unfortunately, I think admins are more and more expected to be the final judges and arbiters of literally every single major editorial action, which goes against the long-standing tradition of local (or centralized, depending on the venue) discussion and consensus-building. Sorry for the rant there at the end. –MuZemike 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I am just getting weary of the abrasive accusations that I am trying to delete the article and circumvent the AfD. This is a standard content/naming dispute, so admin action/intervention is not necessary. I just wanted you to clarify that I am not attempting to delete any content, since seems intent on not listening to my repeated explanations; perhaps your comment will hold more weight. I agree that admins shouldn't judge "rename and delete" discussions at an AfD, but admins do close Requested moves debates, including disputed renames. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. Here's the scenario, Cunard intends to rename the article, create the author into a redirect, then nominate the redirect for deletion. The article will be gone, deleted. Now, you say this isn't a backhanded means of deletion when an article has failed an AfD? That's precisely what it is:
 * "Once this page is moved to the controversy title, I will take this redirect to WP:RFD, but for now this discussion should be about a rename. Are you willing to work on the article so that it will not be solely about the controversy? Cunard (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * Enough forum shopping and misrepresenting yourself. Take it to deletion review if you disagree with the results of the AfD. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to butt in to the (apparently heated) discussion amongst yourselves, but there is an option to move pages without leaving a redirect behind. I don't know if that was discussed in your move discussion, but I figured I'd bring it up. I hope I'm not inadvertently shoving beans up others' noses. –MuZemike 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And then the article on the author is completely deleted. So, in other words, there are more ways he can go about deleting the article, after an AfD failed, without having to go to deletion review to get it deleted? Yes, there are. I'm sure he's thought of plenty. It is backhanded deletion after a failed AfD no matter which method is used. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  02:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357
There are several IP addresses in the archived cases, and the geographic location of Trenton, New Jersey is known. That's enough to run a checkuser. Would it really be better to call it a case of WP:DUCK without doing a bit of checking?&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you provide other evidence besides claiming that they both push an Indian nationalist POV? I'd be willing to endorse if there is more solid evidence that would warrant one. –MuZemike 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated evidence. Numerous editing overlaps, some in some pretty obscure places, even taking Indian nationalism into account.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and endorsed after talking to Nathan about it. –MuZemike 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

input needed at SPI case...
See January 6th case at Sockpuppet investigations/Azukimonaka. Thanks. -- Jayron  32  03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. –MuZemike 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalejenkins
As you were involved in an earlier related report, the above discussion may be of relevance to you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I see it. Thanks. –MuZemike 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Nc1701
Hey there; Alison wanted you to contact her about this case. Could you pop her an email? Cheers.  NW  ( Talk ) 00:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/MuZemike
Just to note I've made your submission into a hidden comment- you can't claim points until the article has featured on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks. I thought it was going to be added onto the Main Page 0:00 7 January, but I misread the DYK queue; it's actually going to be on the Main Page 0:00 8 January. But yeah, my bad. –MuZemike 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly
MZ- Thanks for the great article. Is it worth mentioning that Barack Obama was visiting to receive his prize? Heyzeuss (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, you're welcome, but don't necessarily thank me – thank the others who had helped improve and expand on the article. As far Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is concerned, what connection is that to the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly (I mean, I haven't heard anything about that). –MuZemike 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bye-Bye, Gigogag Sockpuppet War!!!
I am so glad that you rid wikipedia of User:Gigogag and the massive sockpuppetry war/dispute he caused. Without him, users can be trusted once more! You should retire his account and its sockpuppets so people can use those names for their accounts.:-)

PS: someone should create an article about this particular sockpuppetry war. Dock26 Pwnage (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be a bit fair
This is GoonerDP. First you suspended me for a few days saying that I had a sock puppet named Comancheros. I had set up the other user name since I had forgotten my original one and wasn't meaning to do sock puppetry. Anyway I accepted that and have never used Comancheros again. Then you suspended me for a month from Dec 7, 2009 saying I have used another sock puppet called "Crouching Dragon" or something. I have no such user name or ID. Do you even bother to check or just go ahead and suspend people? Even after my telling you this in my talk page, you didn't bother to remove my suspension which has finally expired today. If you are a moderator, please take the responsibility seriously not just abuse your power.
 * No, I look at each and every one of them. If you didn't agree with my block, then you had a chance to request an unblock. –MuZemike 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also administrators are not "moderators". –MuZemike 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that you tried to, but you didn't follow the directions for requesting unblock. Instead of posting the unblock request below the template like it said, you instead posted it inside the template. Hence, no other administrator was able to see that you requested a review of my block. I don't know what to say, since your block has now expired. Just don't abuse multiple accounts like you have again. Regards, –MuZemike 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. Make sure you sign your posts by typing four tildes ~ at the end of your message.

Blocking of Paul24112
I see that you have quite rightly blocked Paul24112. Thank you for that. However, I am somewhat surprised that the block was for only 72 hours. This editor has previously had at least two accounts indefinitely blocked (Paulmch and Paulmchisback). My understanding is that, when an account has been blocked, it is not permitted to use a new account to avoid the block, which in effect you are letting him do, after those 72 hours. It seems to me, as I stated on User talk:Paul24112, that if he is to be allowed to return to editing this must be done via a request for an unblock, not via a second account. In addition, since this user has now given even more evidence that he is here only to be disruptive, the case for an indefinite block seems to me to be even stronger than it was when the previous accounts were blocked. I wonder if you have any comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just indefinitely blocked him as a sock puppet right before your message. –MuZemike 20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work chaps, a most appropriate course of action. Paul24113 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Sensei 0208, User:Sensei 2105, User:Shihan 883
That blocking is not right. I know those people personaly. It's a family of 3 people, which uses one computer. They all have interest in martial arts (as do I and many other people) and we are working together on different articles in many languages. That's ridiculuos that we can't work together in enwiki only. 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakudza19 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. They can request unblock to have another administrator review my blocks. Regards, –MuZemike 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How they can request - if they are blocked from editing? Also please explain why do you disagree. Yakudza19 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They should still be able to edit their talk pages. As for your other question, basically I'm not buying the reason given. –MuZemike 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The most funniest thing that this is true. And the most saddest thing that they were blocked because they have only one laptop for the family - that's discrimination.Yakudza19 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK. And I can physically see across all Internet connections and see who's who. –MuZemike 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

86.96.224.0/21
You've blocked much of the internet access from the UAE,. Fred Talk 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, unblocked. I wished somebody told me this the first time I blocked that range. –MuZemike 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)