User talk:WilliamH/Archive 8

Flipped the block message
I think you meant to flip the link around here, so I did. :) --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that! What is actually the code for it? I thought I was correct in copying what I saw in the mouse hover, but apparently not. WilliamH (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * account creation interface vs. tools:~acc, so just use the first and that will work. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hi, William. On WP:UTRS, I'm handling an unblock appeal regarding a block you imposed. I'm willing to unblock the editor they were spamublocked, provided they accept to follow WP:BESTCOI and to choose a more suitable username. I don't know if you have access to the tool, but, if you do, I'd appreciate your input; the request is located here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've signed up to UTRS and will give my input as soon as my sign-up is accepted by a UTRS admin. WilliamH (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now let's see if they accept my terms. Cheers.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UTRS
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. WilliamH (talk)
 * I've activated your account, thanks for volunteering!--v/r - TP 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My overall contributions so far (Important)
Hello WilliamH, hope you are doing good :). I need to ask about a frank view/opinion on my contributions so far from all experienced users (all other users are also most welcome to comment). As i want to improve more and more day by day and help the project become more successful which i am a proudly a part of. I am always truthful, i also intend to become an administrator in the future to help and serve the project better than ever and for that i need more help and support from all other users on every aspect. I started my Wikipedia editor review Editor review/TheGeneralUser almost a month ago, but no user till now has given me any feedback about my contributions. Looking forward to hearing for suggestions from you and all members of the community. Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello
i´m this user please help me,i want request my unblock,but can´t,because:i not remember my password,kisses 201.220.233.213 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you cannot remember your password then there is pretty much no advantage in having the account unblocked. However, that is actually irrelevant - the account has been locked by Stewards and cannot be used at all on Wikimedia Foundation wikis. WilliamH (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My username
Hi, about the message on my talk page about my username, from a while back, you asked me to put a request in at "Wikipedia:Changing username" but when i clicked on the respective page i wasn't sure how to do it. Any help?--Lewi6400youtubeChannel (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. The username you requested on the unblock template isn't already taken, so follow the instructions here. WilliamH (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request oversight.
Can you oversight this edit? It reveals my personal name. There's also another edit in several instances where my personal name is revealed. Can you also block the respective IP as well?— cyberpower Chat Absent  17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Special:Contributions/108.16.35.106. This is a static IP of a friend of mine who made similar edits as well. Could you please scan their contribs and suppress the necessary edits. I will e-Mail them next time. I know this is stale but could you block it for oversight related issues?— cyberpower Chat Temporarily Online  17:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have suppressed that one revision. You are incredibly lucky I was online at that moment. Special:EmailUser/Oversight exists for a reason - I suggest you put all the problematic diffs in an e-mail. WilliamH (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, no point blocking it though, it's very stale. WilliamH (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent you an eMail before I saw your response. You can still give me your opinion if you'd like.— cyberpower  Chat Absent  20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Synth
Sharing a "common name" does not make something not synthesis. In terms of being a "significant name," I'm not sure what we mean by "significant." It's significant in that it is a name and has a meaning - it's obviously significant enough to list publications together on a disambiguation page - but the mere commonality plus a brief footnote about it in a single book does not independently notability make. I think our tradition here is that a collection of independent facts that have not been linked together as notable by a reliable, third-party source should be scrutinized in the synthesis context (except perhaps in the context of list articles).

Let me give you an example. Creating an article on Review (common name for conservative publications) would still be synthesis, even though it is common for conservative publications: The National Review, The Cornell Review, The Dartmouth Review, The Stanford Review, etc. Each of these publications is somewhat notable, but their name is not independently notable; and to the extend it is worthy of mention that a publication shares its name with another, that can be mentioned in the articles themselves. Neutralitytalk 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'll come back to this when I have more time. WilliamH (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you're aware, please see User talk:John. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting there. Apologies; I should probably have messaged you, so thanks DoRD for doing it for me. --John (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser question
Hello, WilliamH. There is an unblock request at User talk:Lisadawnwrites. The block resulted from a SPI now at Sockpuppet investigations/Max roosevelt/Archive, in which you said "Lisadawnwrites is a relation". I find the behavioural evidence far too weak to justify a block on its own, so I wonder if you would be willing to give me an idea of how strong the technical evidence is. If there is any help you think you can give me without going beyond the checkuser confidentiality limits, either via talk page message or via email, I would be very grateful. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a second look at the data, there's small items I believe I missed the first time. I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt, feel free to unblock. WilliamH (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename
Is it possible for me to get renamed to User:π ? → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions* 17:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not possible I'm afraid, it's globally in use on another wiki. WilliamH (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CHU
Thanks for your comments (and your question).

Once this is done (regardless of how the request turns out), would you be interested in fielding a few questions I have concerning CHU? If not, no worries, I'm fine asking someone else if you prefer. - jc37 14:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be away from home in another city when your candidacy ends, most likely with limited internet access, so I'd say you're probably better off asking MBisanz or WJBscribe - they're the grandfathers of CHU. WilliamH (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, Thanks anyway, And nod, as I think you you've seen in my comments in the request, that's been my intent all along : ) - jc37 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly one person User:GeoJoe1000, User:GeoJoe2000, User:GeoJoe3000, User:GeoJoe4000, User:GeoJoe5000
Hi WilliamH, i just came by these accounts User:GeoJoe1000, User:GeoJoe2000, User:GeoJoe3000, User:GeoJoe4000, User:GeoJoe5000 and i think that they can be possible sockpuppets of each other operated by the same person. Most of these accounts edits are to their user page having article content and other various non-acceptable content as pointed out by some other users. Although there has not been any major disruption, but having multiple accounts without declaration and editing different articles with them is generally suspected upon. Also User:GeoJoe4000 has recently done some disruptive vandalism edits on some other editor's user and user talk pages. I was not sure what needs to be done here, so therefore i have asked you to take the appropriate action as needed in this case. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running this by me. Remember that using multiple accounts is not inherently disallowed - some people use several accounts in order to segregate their edits/watchlists. But of course one must be absolutely certain not to tread on the toes of an account with another. Editing in the same area is more likely to be problematic than among different areas. Please file an SPI if you suspect abuse, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH
Sorry, my bad. Penyulap  ☏  03:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's alright. It's probably fine to do it for open and shut things, like the indefinite blocking of an account making legal threats, but I would avoid closing discussions like that in future. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was sloppy and wrong, if I was to have done what I originally was trying to do properly I would have split it into two parts, the SPI and the COI policy discussion and closed one of them with a link elsewhere. But I was wrong either way. Penyulap  ☏  22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Animelover3 / Salmonmaho2
Our Nyanpire friend has come back to enwiki yet again. Can we weed out any sleepers since he's started to disrupt other wikis too? The case is here. Poked you specifically since you flushed out most of his socks and know him. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from IP
was unblocked this morning by JamesBWatson on promises of good behaviour, but his IP was blocked by you for 3 months in April, and is asking to be unblocked. As this was a checkuser block, I am referring to you to see whether it was only in connection with PRProgRock and his socks, in which case you might consider unblocking, or whether there are other reasons for it to stay blocked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As he has already stated that that is his IP then yes I can confirm it, and no, there is no other reason. IP unblocked. WilliamH (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Autochecked User and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anarchopedia
Hi WilliamH, hope you are doing good :). I was thinking if you could kindly grant me the Autochecked users user right which is a part of the Pending changes feature. I am already a trusted user with several user rights which help me in my Wiki-work and also having this would help me to test it at Pending changes/Testing which i do from time to time. I always use all the user rights properly, carefully and responsibly and having this flag will help too. It's actually just a scaled down version of reviewer user right which i already have but need this one for testing too. Also can you help me in writing and completing this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anarchopedia which i had started a few weeks ago but haven't submitted it for review yet, because it's almost a stub and it needs more content, references and sources. And i know very well that you or anyone else if you know can help me complete it and get it ready to make it a live article soon :) Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well thanks. Could you explain to me what the Autochecked permission actually does? I'm unable to find any documentation on it. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question William, As per Special:ListGroupRights the Autochecked users section says Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted" (autoreview) which is the same as in Autoconfirmed users and Reviewers. But seeing as i do many different kinds of testing with different things, i would like to use this user right. Technically speaking i am not gaining any extra user access level, as i already have it in part of my user group. I really require it for testing purposes :). I also couldn't find out any other documentation of it on Wikipedia for it except it's own page (Autochecked users) and this other page MediaWiki:Group-autoreview which i have found out. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I won't be giving it out. If all it enables is the "(autoreview)" permission, then it is technically indistinguishable from the other rights which allow the same permission. There's no point giving out flags which are completely redundant, as I'm sure you understand. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But William, there are also user users who are administrators and other alternate accounts which do have this user right. Please, i need it to test it in the pending changes/testing. I don't see any harm in doing this and there shouldn't be any problem either. I know i said above that it is technically same, but it's still different from them. And also after using and testing it i can give the feedback for it to MediaWiki software developers about it's possible usage and future use. I hope you can surely understand me and certainly help. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking from my experience installing MediaWiki, I can assure you it is not different at all. The actual right in question is, and the software will not make any distinction regardless of the name of the group. WilliamH (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already know that it is technically same for the software and i am fully assured by your word William. But i really don't understand that why when a trusted user like me needs to to legitimately test and experience a thing first hand and that too for a minor purpose which i don't get to do it really does make me feel bad. Everything i am doing here is for the benefit and improvement of our project Wikipedia. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and respect your good intentions, but there is nothing to actually test. WilliamH (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SunLover77
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bovlb (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment
I noticed where you removed a users advanced permission of autopatrolled because it was bundled into sysop and therefore redundant. I think it is important to remember that it is possible that an admin could one day be desysopped and at such time the removal of sysop would remove the other permissions they would otherwise rightfully retain. IMO it serves a functional purpose to leave the previously acquired permissions in place as they were earned. My76Strat (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and one with which I agree. In hindsight I needn't have put that it was because they were sysops - being autoconfirmed alone renders autochecked redundant. WilliamH (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. Somehow my eyes processed that permission as autopatrolled. I see now that it was as you say autochecked. That does change things. Thank you for the kind manner in which you considered my comment, and extenuated thoughtful regards. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Incidentally, scroll up a bit and there's a discussion on autochecked. As you can see, I was unfamiliar with it too. WilliamH (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Another SunLover77 sock?
Hello WilliamH, I think that another sock of SunLover77, or whatever the primary account is, has made this edit in which he removed a COI tag. Again, similar username format, same tactic of creating an account and making multiple contributions on one day with edits to the Jon Gordon article appearing in middle of the group. At this point I don't know if the tag removal should be reverted or if the article is O.K. as is. I'm also not sure if I need to start another SPI for this. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Fix (book)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail
--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI question
Hey, William, although I'm getting better at SPI reports than I used to be, I still screw up because of misunderstandings as to how things work. Such a weird world. I reported an account as a master (Smithbuses) and two IPs as puppets. I asked for a CU, figuring you could then see if they were technically related. You declined saying we don't normally associate accounts with IP addresses. So, I assume that means (a) I should never request a CU when IPs are involved, or (b) only when the only puppets are IPs? And does that also mean the only way to determine whether there is a relationship is from conduct? Thanks for any light you can shed on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. It's not inappropriate to file an SPI concerning an account and an IP, e.g. in the case of editing while logged out or something like that, but declining the CU request is simply a procedural thing. People sign up for an account with one of the benefits (reflected in the privacy/CheckUser policy) being that their IP address is not public, so for this reason we do generally do not publicly associate accounts and IP addresses, unless there are particularly extenuating circumstances, or the necessity to file a long term abuse report or something like that. Does that make sense? WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought about it later after I went off-Wiki, and I already could see the basis of your decline even before I read your response. I've also now looked at the section called "IP information disclosure" in WP:CHK, which I assume is the section you are referring to. I still have a couple of questions just to nail things down for the future, if you don't mind: (1) Why does the filer of an SPI request or not request a CU? It seems to be that should be decided based on the report itself by someone like you who knows whether it would be helpful. Many times I have NOT asked for a CU and yet it has been done, and other times, like this one, I mistakenly think a CU should be requested, and it's properly declined. (2) Because generally in cases like mine (alleged registered sock master and IP puppets) no CU is done to protect the privacy of the registered account, these cases, as I said above, must necessarily be decided based only on behavior - is that right? Thanks again for bearing with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I view the privacy-related policies as a form of self-protection which is reciprocal to an individual's behaviour on wiki. Like AGF, they are not suicide pacts, and if you edit or behave in such a way where a link between your account and otherwise off-wiki stuff can be drawn, you must accept that as the price of your activity, especially if it is needed to stop your activity. You are correct about the second item. As for the first, I suspect that was because the CU felt that CU evidence would offer the most conclusive resolution to a case, or that he suspected there was more to it than meets the eye. WilliamH (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been very helpful, thanks, William.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche
Thanks for your sterling efforts there. Is it worth blocking and  as well? --John (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Already range blocked them yesterday my good man. If they resurface again after one week, hardblocking 46.108.133.0/24 is the answer. WilliamH (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're good. Thanks a lot, I really am impressed. --John (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!
Hello WilliamH!

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards, Devin mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you are going to need to change your username or retire this account and use a new one, as your current username suggests you are a bot. Secondly, these are the criteria that determine whether or not musicians/bands may have an article on them - do you satisfy at least one of them? WilliamH (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aww, sorry, yes our band meets the notability guidelines. My nickname has been Devbot for most of my life, unfortunately. ;) Thanks for responding! Devbot (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which one is it you satisfy? WilliamH (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour
 * http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2011/08/mr_meeble_sets_off_for_europea.php Devbot (talk)
 * I just filed an AIV request for this user. This user is spamming the whole community with useless messages like these. Thanks. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 06:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC) For a short note, blogs are not reliable sources.  Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 06:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi William, I have arrived at your talkpage after receiving one of these apparent spam messages and noting that you have block the account. May I draw your attention to the revision history of Devbot. In 2007 this account was moved to DevAlt, which is an alternative account of Dev920.  Richard Harvey (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard. I haven't really taken a thorough look, but it is not impossible that it is another individual, and that they have simply created a name which did not exist. WilliamH (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had considered that possibility, however the edit to the user page was basically an undo of another editors 'Move' of the username to another name and recorded in the page edit history as done by User:Devbot. in which case I assume the editor would have had to know the password to login as 'Devbot' and do the edit. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Providing more information as requested on Victor Lewis-Smith sockpuppetry
I have just posted at Sockpuppet_investigations/Dora63 - sorry about the delay VLSCheck (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, you need to explain - ideally with diffs - i) how the accounts can be attributed to one individual and ii) how they are being abusively. That's the only way for an SPI case to be resolved, and definitely the only premise before it is reasonable to check IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I've had a go at doing what you say (although I am new to this so sorry if it's not right) - see Sockpuppet_investigations/Dora63 VLSCheck (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. WilliamH (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've just posted a follow up question on the same page. VLSCheck (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question
Random question, but I was wondering how this edit came to your attention? Thanks for the revert anyhow Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I can't imagine it's too hard to guess? :) WilliamH (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looked at your userpage and realised you're not your regular admin. And there was me thinking there was some special page or something. Duh... Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey!
Hey, WilliamH! Just stopping by to say 'hi'. I see that you are one of the Wikipedia users who are up in 'high places'. That is very cool! I hope to one day become an Admin (and maybe a Bureaucrat). Any advice you would mind giving me to help prepare me to become either of those? Thanks! At32296 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, you should read this page. Although it is in theory possible to become a bureaucrat without initially being an admin, I don't believe that's ever happened before, and I don't think it will. Assisting at Changing username is experience which will go in a bureaucrat candidate's favour, because the day-to-day crat tasks are renaming users, not RFA. WilliamH (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks so much! I will read all of the information you sent me. Thanks again! At32296 (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What to do after the Username Change
Can you look at User talk:HoytHeather and assist the user with what the next step is? How does he log in to his new username? Ryan Vesey Review me!  22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The next step is up to him to log in to the target username with the credentials of the former username. WilliamH (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He said he tried that. Ryan Vesey Review me!  23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) re
 * Perhaps give it a few minutes for it to settle down on the server side. If that doesn't resolve the issue, I see that he gave an e-mail address when signing up for an account, so it should be possible to retrieve the password or create a new one via that way. WilliamH (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me to have been because he tried to log in first on commons. When someone changes a username on en.wiki, does it only change it on en.wiki? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. WilliamH (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Username change
Can you please accept or deny my user-name change request?--Deathlaser (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a little bit of objection or questioning about it, so I will leave it to a more experienced crat. WilliamH (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did the rename, but wasn't aware of some of the background when I did. Since the old userpage redirects, this won't interfere with, or prejudice, any other process that may happen.  -- Pakaran 22:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Little confused
Hello sir! I came across something and this was little odd to me. According to this, there are no edits. But according to this, there are 2500 edits. Can you please clarify that why has this happened or is there a bug or something. Thanks! :)  →TSU tp* 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, sorry. A bug is the best explanation I can come up with. WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its due to WP:CHU-- D Big X ray  11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about new article I created
Hi, William. Sorry to bother you again. I just have one quick question. Okay, so yesterday I created my first article, Hannah's Law. However, the article does not show when you type it into the drop-down search box or on Google searches (I know it takes to time update those, though). Will it show up in time or have I done something wrong? I've scoured the help center but can find nothing that relates to my problem. Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to give me! Alex T. (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it takes time, that's all. For a first article, I'm quite impressed. You should consider working a bit more on it, and nominating it to go on the front page via Did you know. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a quick reply. If you type "hannah's law" (with no capitals), it shows on the box. However, if you type the title with capitals, it doesn't show. Did I do something wrong in naming the article? And thanks for the comment on the article. I'll do my best to expand the article and will consider placing it on did you know. Alex T. (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Everything seems to be working now. Thanks again for your help! Alex T. (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

8HGasma
Concerning 8HGasma, did you perform a CU? Just curious.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, as archived here. WilliamH (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That whole thing
Hi, William.

I'm sure you know which "whole thing" I'm referring to, so I'll get right to it -- regardless of which of us was in the right, it was unreasonable for me to react the way I did. I'm not going to try to justify anything I said or did, other than to say that what I said was how I felt at the time, and that I can see now that my comments were coloured, at least in part, by an irrational pride and a failure to assume good faith. I'm not going to say that "I apologise if I offended you", as those sorts of apologies always sound contrived to me. I know I offended you, so my apology will not be conditional on something that is obviously, and rightly, the case. I would like to sincerely apologise to you for being uncivil and for assuming that you were being intentionally dishonest in your comments on the reversions in question. Even though I and others believed your revocation of my rollback powers to be in error and possibly counter to policy, I was not justified to speak or act the way I did or to blatantly ignore the principles of AGF as I did. I am sorry. Evanh2008 (talk 10:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for such a considerate and nuanced apology - it is graciously accepted. I'm also sorry that the incident distracted us from what we're both here to do - build a great encyclopedia. So let's get back to it. Obviously the page in question concerns a pretty contentious issue. Well, I've been one of the driving forces behind Holocaust denial for a while; I wrote this FAQ section which appears in the talk page. Perhaps you should consider borrowing elements from the Holocaust denial talk page and using them to style the talk page of American Third Position Party in a similar way. If my experience is anything to go by, I'm sure it'll give you fewer disturbances of the peace. WilliamH (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, and thanks for the suggestion! I'm certainly interested in doing all I can to keep disputes at the article to a minimum. I'll see if I can put together an FAQ or something similar for the article in question. Evanh2008 (talk 06:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops
It looks like my move and your comment collided here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, yes, so it does. WilliamH (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So...since I already did the merge, would you like to move your comment to the right page then? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet
You have recently blocked User:Taurniul as a sockpuppet. User DePiep reverted one of his edits at History of the Jews of Argentina, and now the IP 200.114.132.36 is reverting him everywhere. Clearly, it's the same user you blocked. Cambalachero (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is obvious indeed - blocked for a week. WilliamH (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks, but he's at it again, now at the IP 190.17.195.176 Cambalachero (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC) blocked while I wrote here Cambalachero (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nominations
Thanks for the fine review and good suggestions.

The hook is good but its paragraph lacked citations. I suggested one at the DYK nomination review section, but was too lazy to implement it. It should be easy.

Thanks again!

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz  15:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All done, it should be good to go now. Thanks for your time! WilliamH (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your suggestions. I did improve the article's explanation of "lefty" tunings and then added a hook like you suggested (although the *mp template is buggy). Cheers, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I alert you that I have changed the first hook, which you approved. I added specific tunings (by notes) and I removed the "for its open-string intervals":
 * while the standard guitar-tuning E-A-D-G-B-E has one major third amid four perfect fourths (illustrated), the augmented-fourths tuning B-F-B-F-B-F has only tritone intervals?
 * I shall also replace "has" with "interjects", as in the article, because "has" is so vague.
 * I trust that is not a problem, but alert you as a courtesy.
 * Thanks again for your help. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "includes", as "interjects" sounds wrong. Definitely better than "has". WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "interjects" was POV, also. Thanks again. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite having two hooks already approved by you, the nomination still waits for an administrator to move it into the queue.
 * Mathopoetics: I suggested hooks 1-2 on augmented-fourths and all-fourths tunings (and their perfect fourths) for the 4th of July, which has only one hook so far.
 * Complicated discussions slow-down DYK closing. To expedite the main-page appearance, I hid the sound-file. I collapsed your~ proposal (!) and my discussion and implementation of the third hook. If you want me to uncollapse it, let me know. Thanks! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you were expecting me to get back to it, I thought I'd done all was necessary and was just waiting for a DYK admin to approve it. I don't mind what you've done, and it would be a nice touch if it got there for the 4th. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you don't mind of my having edited your comments. I suspect that the combined nomination of the audio-file and illustration scared administrators from closing. So I hid the audio-file, and collapsed the edits. Cheers, 20:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

DYK for Counterknowledge
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
Hi William. Please could you also check as the account has followed my edits in about five or six different articles and created trolling forks of two articles I have written myself. More details are given in the SPI report. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that Mathsci blanked the wrong article by mistake during this episode. No doubt this sort of collateral damage is an acceptable risk as far as the encyclopaedia is concerned.  The Phrontistery (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)  evident sock puppet of Echigo mole Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Y26Z3 Sockpuppet investigation
Since you had involvement in the blocking of user Y26Z3 because of his edits at Lusitanic, I thought you'd be interested to know that I believe he has created a new sockpuppet through which he is beginning to make similar edits and is again lobbying for the deletion of Lusitanic. The sockpuppet investigation I started against him is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3 Goodsdrew (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, case relisted
This is just a note that I relisted Sockpuppet investigations/Puppettheater, as four accounts were not commented on. If you could drop by this case again, that would be great, thanks. :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have to be a pest about this case, but I have asked a follow-up question for clarification at Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)