User talk:WikiDao/Archive 7

Seriously.....
... if we are both waiting for enlightenment on NIM's page, it's going to be a very long wait. Do you have any tea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. I do, actually.  Sugar?  You know, though, I meant more just "waiting for enlightenment" in general terms.  Things with NIM, though, have been developing fairly quickly lately.  I'm interested to see what develops next.  The thing is, I really did – along with some other RD regulars – take the "blindness" handicap at face value, and went out of my way to try to be helpful.  And I am even still willing to believe that there is some truth somewhere in NIM's various "stories" (going back about three months or so now since I first started listening to some of them myself).  It's just gotten outrageous at this point, though.  Something is very wrong, and I'm very glad that whatever it may be is getting looked into and dealt with in the way that it is at this point.  Cucumber sandwiches...? ;)  WikiDao    &#9775;  05:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind removing your latest comment from NIM's page? I'd rather they just have that one question from me to answer and it's not appropriate for their page anyway, it is an administrative decision to forcibly change a username, thus should be at AN/I only. Franamax (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. WikiDao    &#9775;  19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Ask and ye shall receive... :) Here is the work program. There are three targets: 1) Use of EA in sigs in association with "step behind the line" - this can just be removed (the EA part); 2) "I miss you " (or " I miss you", whichever) - remove the ; 3) the uname itself where it appears as "Nxxx Ixxx's Man" - I'm not sure which is the best way to go on this, one way is to change those instances to just "Comet Egypt", which was the latterly adopted form. This is the simplest way to go, but relies on the userspace redirect remaining. The other way would be to change every single signature to the new username, plus the relevant usages in user templates etc. I think changing to Comet Egypt is the best course.

Given the relatively low number of pages involved, it's probably easiest to just check each talk page and the latest archive or two. The internal search function can help to find leftovers you miss, but it usually takes a day or two to re-index, so in my experience you need to work in bursts. The ultimate target is to get this all settled out and gone from a Google search, that can take up to a week or two to re-crawl this site and find any leftovers.

If you really want to help out, assess the situation and develop your own plan of attack. Try a few cleanups, post a diff here and I will look it over (though I'm confident you can manage fine :). I can handle AN/I and any other more sensitive pages. Your edit summary would be "clean up user sig per AN/I posting" and if anyone questions it, that can be dealt with if it happens. :) That's the scope, if you want to take on some of it you will save me some work, so thanks if you try! Franamax (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, sounds good. Happy to help with this, but I probably won't be able to get started with it until about 12 hours or so from now.  Definitely will start digging into it then, though!   WikiDao    &#9775;  05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I started working on this. Beginning at the bottom of NIM's contribution list, I've altered his sigs on all User talk pages which he first contributed to in 2010 -- that is, I worked my way up the list but stopped at 1/1/11.  I also didn't touch NIM's user talk page, yours, or Franamax's, figuring you would each prefer to do your own, and that perhaps Franamax should do NIM's.  I have not touched article talk pages or the Wikipedia domain. I may be able to pick this up again later, but I'm going to take a break from it now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, BMK. I'll pick it up at 1/1/11 and post back here how far I get with that. I'm starting just with the RD posts. (There's also article talk, and I expect a lot of RD posts that have been archived...).  WikiDao    &#9775;  13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Franamax, here's the diff for the RD talk page:.
 * I left
 * N.I.M. i miss you n—!  E— A— go behind the line.
 * with "N.I.M." still visible, as
 * N.I.M. (talk)  (redacted)
 * I'm not entirely sure what the two different ways of dealing with that are that you mentioned above, but does that seem okay? WikiDao    &#9775;  14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Late addition: I'm not sure what happened in my opening statement, I was trying to discuss the merits of using a pipe ( | ) to substitute the visible text "N.I.M." for the full occurrence of (you-know-what) in sig links, versus using the new username instead. Search engines and mirrors use the visible text that gets displayed when the HTML is rendered, so underlying wikilink changes can be made in different ways without affecting gsearch results, whilst still preserving information useful to wiki-editors such as who-did-what-when. Looking back, it seems that I may have accidentally nuked part of my outline of work. This explanation may not make much more sense either, although I'm quite familiar with the whole process of "Save page" to "search on Google", it can get difficult to explain it in various situations. :) Franamax (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I got most of the RD sigs (including archives). That would just leave user-talk for 2011, and whatever article-talk there might be.  I'm going to take a break from this for now.  WikiDao    &#9775;  18:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, there are now only about 20 links to NIM's original userpage/talkpage . Basically various user talkpages and a few "administrative" pages.  You should make the call on those, Franamax.  Otherwise: all cleaned up! :)  WikiDao    &#9775;  20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The name in question still appears in CE's own words on his own page. Someone needs to blank that page and full-protect it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm gonna let Franamax handle the last bits needing clean-up, though – and man I did a lot of scrubbing today!!  WikiDao    &#9775;  21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point you'll probably need to scrub yourself, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some of those on the list that was linked above, leaving CE's & Franamax's user talk pages, the current AN/I discussion, the changing username discussion and a few others. Otherwise, I think everything's been cleaned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this whole thing has been unpleasant. And thanks again for helping out with the scrubbing, too, Beyond My Ken.  Time for a beer or something – cheers!  WikiDao    &#9775;  21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The message I just got from one of the admins is that they'll be taking care of the issue I raised above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good job" to all concerned. I'd been ignoring NIM for a while now and had missed out on all the fun. But, after going through the ANI thread(s) and all the stuff on the user talkpages and so so (and so on), I must commend you all for the heaping piles of AGF (and plain, old-fashioned, patience) you've displayed. It's a shame that it came down to an indefinite block, but I think it's pretty clear that every courtesy was extended. I'm still not sure how much of their story was outright lie and how much was overactive wishful thinking, but this user has been quacking like a WP:DUCK for a long time. Your "scrubbing" is appreciated; if my name ever got abused in a similar manner, I'd hope to have users like you there to clear up the mess afterwards. Again, kudos to all. Matt Deres (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My thanks also to WD and BMK for yeoman service. I know just cleaning up my own talk and the AN/I thread was rather daunting, I sort of winged it on my approach, and I'm thinking about a few loose ends still out there. At this point I think we have to let the various search engines do their thing and get all the re-indexing done, then have another look in a week or two. But I'm thinking the majority of the work has been very effectively performed by the two of you, thanks much for your diligence on this! And I too wouldn't mind climbing into a nice long hot shower just now... Franamax (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to have helped out with this, but it's really unfortunate that it all worked out this way. I had also hoped, back about a month or two ago, that despite all the problematic "issues", Comet Egypt might have turned out differently.  And I feel for the guy, too.  What a shame.
 * Anyway, I think we're okay now with the links-to-old-userpage and the names in the sig scattered all over – that should resolve most of the goo-problem eventually, as far as I understand how that works. Thanks again to everyone who had a chance to help out with this whole sad mess. :(
 * — WikiDao   &#9775;  06:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hapy to have been able to help out a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about how the WP:U policy made this problem possible
Comment removed from User talk:Nihonjoe per user's request and with the recommendation that it should be posted to WT:U instead, which I may eventually do.


 * If I may also comment here, it seemed to me that one of the objections expressed in the original discussion at RFC/NAME was that the former username (of the form "[Minor actress]'s man") was in no way in violation of WP:U. And it only became clear recently that the actress turns out to be a twelve- or thirteen-year-old girl and the user claimed to be an adult male, but – without knowing the policy very well at all – I got the impression from the comments there that that would have been okay per WP:U, too.  Given how this case has gone, is it really a good policy to permit that sort of thing so readily?
 * The problem in this case is that the user/talk-page was becoming a prominent g-hit in searches on that child-actress's name, and it was implied and then directly asserted on that page (and elsewhere...) that this child-actress was involved in a "romantic" relationship with the adult-male user. Hence the username, now understood to be readable as: "[Child actress's] man".  The username, the BLP-violating claim of a potentially "controversial" relationship, and the g-search results (along with all the other reasons for concern about the now-indef'd user's behavior) might have resulted in significant damage to the girl's reputation, acting career, and emotional well-being.
 * Shouldn't the potential problems with another such situation occurring in the future be more explicitly addressed by the policy, perhaps by requiring that any use at all of a living person's name in a username must be cleared through WP:OTRS first...? I am not too familiar myself with what the balance of issues might be on this point, and I'm not sure where the best place to be expressing it might be, but having observed this case unfold I really do think something like that ought to at least be considered.
 * Apologies for such a long post on your talkpage like this. But I did also want to point out that I think Franamax handled all of this very well; it was difficult for a long time to tell exactly what was going on, but Franamax's interaction with the user was consistently appropriate, responsible, and helpful throughout. :) Regards,  WikiDao    &#9775;  04:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are big obstacles to requiring all use of a living person's name in a username to be cleared via OTRS first. A significant number of editors do use their own real names in their usernames, and it would seem excessive to require them all to approach OTRS. (The alternative, of banning people from using their real names, would be even more impractical.) The other side of it is, maybe those that commented at RFC/NAME just got it wrong this time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to mention this while it could be seen as canvassing or an invitation to comment, but it's been a few weeks now. I addressed this issue here and as a result the username policy was reworded here. That change is reasonably to my satisfaction, as it addresses the proximate issue and I think will prevent similar problems from arising in future. Franamax (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, that addresses my concern as well. WikiDao    &#9775;  21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: reference desk poker discussion
Excellent posts, by the way, just thought I'd mention. Honestly I'm not sure that this guy is trolling, however, I think it's more likely that he has a rudimentary grasp of some advanced theoretical math and physics and thinks he's spotted a loophole in the nature of the universe, or at least random chance. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's written well enough to make me wonder why he'd be asking our advice about the morality of his scheme. But if he's really genuinely serious and, for example, it's really only very occasionally that he plays without looking at his cards, just to keep the other players slightly less certain about being able to "read" him, but not so frequently as to be probabilistically disadvantageous to him overall (in fact, taking their increased uncertainty about that mathematically into account, he actually ends up winning more often than he would by "pure chance") – then I'll apologize for doubting his sincerity and will give some more thought to how he ought to feel about himself for doing such a thing. ;)  WikiDao    &#9775;  23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely possible, but even so it seems to me, as someone on the page pointed out, the goal of poker is to win hands, not to not betray any information. If it were a dilemma game where you have to guess, that's one thing, but the majority of the game is in the cards not the mind.  Shrewd play can turn a terrible hand into only a small loss or a great hand into a very large pot, and can even turn a questionable hand into a won pot.  But at the end of the day three of a kind beats a pair and if you have a pair and they have three of a kind they win.  The idea of playing poorly to be unreadable only works if every other player is dumb enough to act on his read of you alone and not his hand.  A good player won't push a hand that has no chance of winning on a bluff alone unless he's really cornered.  If I saw someone betting wildly the way he proposes, that wildly, I would stop attempting to read him and just play my cards, if I didn't get up and walk away. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is because his "scheme" is so outrageous -- and because he presents it so absurdly as somehow "mathematically superior" -- that I doubted his sincerity in asking the question in the first place. WikiDao    &#9775;  10:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to extensive WP:COPYVIO issues:
You are saying that I need to write the article in my own words? If so I understand as all the information from this page is direct from the links. Did you at least find all links source-worthy? Cavenman (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)]]
 * Yes, you absolutely, definitely need to write the article in your own words. Just copying text in from other sites is WP:COPYVIO and it will get deleted right away if it is in article mainspace.
 * I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources because you have since removed them from User:Cavenman/Halls Tainted Red. That's fine, but you could leave the links themselves up (unless any of them are on the "spam-blacklist", in which case the software would not have allowed you to put them up to begin with). WP:RS is the overview of WP policy about reliable sources.  If you want to restore just the links on that page (in your userspace), I could have a closer look at them.
 * But, the other thing you have to consider is whether this musician meets WP's notability requirements for musicians. The policy on that is covered in WP:MUSICBIO. So I would recommend you start by having a look at the criteria listed there; if the artist you want to write an article about meets those criteria, then there will probably be plenty of reliable sources about him out there.
 * Good luck, and whether or not this particular article works out, thanks for your interest in contributing to WP. Happy editing! :)  WikiDao    &#9775;  10:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I will post the links later tonight. All links include original band bio's or press releases for Halls Tainted Red.  I am concerned because the way I structured the wiki was the only way that it made sense to structure it.  If I get permission from these websites to use the material will I then be able to post the wiki page as it was?  Links cannot be sent now as I am not at my home computer. Cavenman (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)]]


 * The links are still in the page-history, where I could still get at them; it would just be more convenient if you re-posted them. I am not sure that the sites you linked to establish sufficient notability, though.  You should, again, consider the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO carefully.
 * You can request from the publishers of the text you want to use that they license it for use at WP, but that is sort of a hassle of a process. See WP:PERMISSION.  Basically you have to email them, get them to agree to license it acceptably, then get them to convince WP:OTRS that they have the right to grant that license for its use.  Usually easier to just summarize it in your own words!  WikiDao    &#9775;  21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

here is a link to my userspace with halls tainted red sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cavenman  Cavenman (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)]]
 * No, those don't look like sufficiently reliable sources to base a wikipedia article on. What you need is more secondary sources, which are discussed at WP:SECONDARY.  Good luck, though!  WikiDao    &#9775;  18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would these links be considered reliable sources?

http://www.thegauntlet.com/freshblood/9

http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4359/20749/Halls-Tainted-Red-frontman-making-horror-film.html

http://www.brutalism.com/content/merging-metal-and-horror-films-with-halls-tainted-red

http://brutalism.com/content/2-video-trailers-posted-from-hall-stainted-red

Bands such as Gojira use the gauntlet as a source. I would assume that makes the interviews and press releases on Halls Tainted Red legitimate as well. Additionally, I have found another notable Heavy Metal website Brutalism with an interview and press release regarding video releases for the band. Would you consider the links in question primary or secondary sources? Cavenman (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)]]


 * The second one above looks like a secondary source. Summarizing and sourcing that should be okay.  I'm still not sure this band meets the requirements for notability at WP:MUSICBIO, but I'm not really into metal so I wouldn't know.  You can always try just writing the article and seeing what happens.  Good luck! :)  WikiDao    &#9775;  13:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion
Hi WikiDao, thanks for your advice on the citations for the page i created: 'list of 2012 adherents'. This page is now up for deletion. I think it is notable now and will be even more notable after that year is complete, because it will enable people to compare claims and claimants, against realities. If you want to have your say on the deletion, here is the deletion-discussion page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_2012_adherents#List_of_2012_adherents Zenji (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, will be happy to take a look, but from what I recall it may indeed have WP:N issues. Could be salvageable, though, I'll have to see on what grounds it's being proposed for deletion.  In any case, even if it does get deleted, it was a worthy attempt, and I wish you luck with the next one.  Happy editing! :)  WikiDao    &#9775;  02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Help for less technical
Hi there,

You seem to know a lot about how to do this site. I am a bit older (won't say just how old) and I am intimidated. Do you have any tips for me on how to learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich.Sparrow (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I put an expanded "welcome" template on your talk page. I hope that helps some.  Wikipedia can be challenging and intimidating to use at any age! ;)  Nevertheless, the best way to learn is to be WP:BOLD (which is encouraged – within reason...).  WP:CIVILITY is expected, and always helps.  Don't get too frustrated with feedback you get, or too personally "involved" in disputes like the one at Talk:J.G. Wentworth.  If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to leave a note for me here, or place the helpme template on your own talk page and someone will be along to help before long.  Happy editing!  WikiDao    &#9775;  20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gateless Gate
1934 publication is a good start, in what country was it originally published, and when? Then see the discussion found at "Commons talk:Licensing/Which copyright law applies?" User talk:JamAKiska


 * Thanks for responding; I have left a message for you at your wikisource talkpage (feel free to respond further either here or there). I have started putting that together though at The Gateless Gate.  Does that seem okay so far...?  Thanks!  WikiDao    &#9775;  23:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Got your message, hope this helps... while ws The Gateless Gate page is off to a smooth start, there are some underlying issues that need to be addressed. Borrowing from the wp The Gateless Gate, it would seem as if a work produced in that era would be in the public domain by now, and yet was unable to find a source listing it as such. So the challenge with this work, a non-english (translation), is to find a source that will provide an english translation pdf or djvu file format for upload that is considered in the public domain. The websites listed all have price tags on display for that work which I believe would make it an excruciatingly hard sell to commons. One could wait for quite some time for the file meeting the requirements from above, you could scan from a bound edition (though copyright needs to be addressed :see PD-US-not renewed:), or go international and seek help there. How's your mandarin? If you are interested see...WikiProject Translation User talk:JamAKiska 01:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks -- if I understand how that works, I could find no record of copyright renewal for the Gateless Gate at the resources given at PD-US-not renewed. So I'll put that template up at wikisource and hope that'll be that! :) Thanks for your help,  WikiDao    &#9775;  09:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've got the full text of the non-copyright-renewed 1934 English translation of all 49 Koans up now: The Gateless Gate.
 * None of it has been marked as "patrolled" yet -- I hope it will clear whatever process that entails soon, so I can start making use of some of that material in the wikipedia article, too. How long does it usually take for things to get patrolled/approved over there...?  Thanks again for all your help,  WikiDao    &#9775;  21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unique case, as this text is available primarily on-line. Most texts are provided in the formats indicated above that allow side by side proofreading and verification. This text can be verified which should keep it from being in jeopardy. The formatting seems a little crowded, timing was off the charts... The copyright tags were a wise move. Keep searching for the pdf or djvu file formats so as to provide that side-by-side capability as soon as it becomes available. I will ask for a review and get additional guidance if required...if I come back as a fox...good luck...or... following a successful review, should be able to link to the ws document. Nicely done...User talk:JamAKiska 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JamAKiska. Aum, WikiDao    &#9775;  23:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Events appear to be unfolding in a favorable direction, based upon recent reviews. Good luck on your journey...User talk:JamAKiska 01:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Random koans
Could someone please tell me ASAP if this is going to be a bad thing here? Thanks, WikiDao    &#9775;  23:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the text itself seems to have (so far) cleared Wikisource, anyway, so I'm going to assume it's ok to do this:


 * Isn't that cool? :) Comments, improvement suggestions, etc. are welcome. WikiDao    &#9775;  13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

JWH-073
It isn't scheduled yet. It was listed as a drug of concern by the DEA, but as of today, still not on their scheduling lists. For your benefit: MartinezMD (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/spice/spice_jwh073.html
 * http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
 * Hmm. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr112410.html says "The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is using its emergency scheduling authority to temporarily control five chemicals (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol)..." which I interpreted to mean JWH-073 had indeed been "emergency scheduled" despite what the other links you provide say.
 * There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about this issue at this point -- I'd even heard by word-of-mouth that that "emergency scheduling" had been challenged in court and is not in fact in effect at this time. Anyway, I won't contest your reversion for now and will just hope that one way or another you're right, lol! :)  Cheers,  WikiDao    &#9775;  02:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone with an interest is waiting to hear from the DEA. They are required at least a 30-day announcement period before they can schedule, and as it stands, they still haven't followed up.  I'm sure they will soon (they need to unless they want a bunch of synthetic pot on the market), but as of right now, some of the compounds remain unscheduled.  I need to know these things because of the legal aspect of my practice. MartinezMD (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, from your link (it's the same one everyone is talking about) the DEA says "A Notice of Intent to Temporarily Control was published in the Federal Register today". "Intent" is the key word. :)  MartinezMD (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kj650
Thanks for the info linking Kj650 and Tomjohnson357. I have lodged a report about sockpuppetry involving these two User names. See HERE. Dolphin ( t ) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, thought so. Looks like two more "inwikiations" of Kj650 got tagged-and-bagged out of that SPI, but I doubt we've seen the last of this one.  He's been persisting at the RD through several accounts for a long time now.  Not sure what his deal is, difficult to engage with in dialogue, too.  We may in this case just need to hope they get bored trolling the RD and move on elsewhere eventually.  Regards,  WikiDao    &#9775;  14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is capable of adopting a new User name, but I doubt he is capable of adopting a new persona. It should be easy to spot any reincarnation of Kj650 - fails to sign his posts, fails to use capitalization and question mark, trollish questions, fails to engage on Talk page, blanks the page etc. If we remain vigilant we should be able to spot him fairly quickly.  Dolphin  ( t ) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just keeping track: Wdk789 might be another. WikiDao    &#9775;  00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree! Do you want to raise the SPI this time? (If the request at SPI includes a request to Checkuser an Admin will check the IP addresses used for the various Usernames.  That may confirm conclusively that the various Usernames are coming from the one IP address.)   Dolphin  ( t ) 01:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I hesitate to request a CU until there's more clearly a problem with this one. "Behaviorally" it seems pretty likely that it's the same person, but hasn't really gotten too annoying or troll-some yet with that alias.  I'm just noting that one down for reference right now, and as soon as there's a problem, even under a different username, we can include it in another CU sweep and hopefully bag a few of 'em all at once again. ;)  WikiDao    &#9775;  01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also keep an eye on Joshuad95. Dolphin  ( t ) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, I went ahead and made note of that one too at the RD. We may be just about ready for another SPI...  WikiDao    &#9775;  22:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't spotted Lufc88. The others were blocked on 23 February, and Lufc88 appeared on 24 February!  Dolphin  ( t ) 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on whether is named and is editing in a familiar pattern?  -- Scray (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very familiar! This diff is classic Kj650 and his sockpuppets.  Wdk789 was blocked on 15 April, and Kci357 is an account created on 19 April. For more background information see WT:Reference desk/Archive 82.   Dolphin  ( t ) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at all of that before I posted here - I remember it well. -- Scray (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O
Thank you for taking the time and giving your input on Cursing the fig tree! --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to help out there. Regards,  WikiDao    &#9775;  22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Cat wikiscient.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cat wikiscient.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Acather96 (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)