User talk:MuZemike/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MuZemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Hi there. I'm notifing you of this since you approved the article for GA. Recently, and IP mentioned that there was an upcoming FAC for the article when he put it up for copyediting. I took a look at the article, and... well what I saw was an article with a gaping hole. Please view my comment at the bottom of the talk page. I'm going to give that a chance to be fixed, but I'm quite tempted to take it to GAR for failing criteria 3a (major aspects covered).

I'm also notifying Nergaal (inactive, but top contributor) and G.W. (highest contributor that is still active).

Thank you for your time. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

108.70.14.166 has recently introduced unsourced material and POV on List of Silent Hill characters, Silent Hill: Downpour, and Silent Hill; they have also introduced unsourced material on The Darkness (comics). I warned them 4 times, each time ascending one level on the warning scale, but they continue the disruptive editing. What do you suggest? Hula Hup (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the very recent activity, I have blocked the IP for 1 week. –MuZemike 06:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello;
My understanding is that the nominator withdrawing is not normally a reason to close the debate, is that not your understanding? Also, you didn't even mention the question of sourcing in the close? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that the sourcing there was sufficient to warrant keeping it – not all of them, but several point do. In any case, I do not possibly see how this could have been closed as anything other than a "keep". –MuZemike 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on my talk page with Ironholds about Paul Lendvai whose page I protected after removing BLP violations. THanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going off to bed shortly, but I can take a look at it tomorrow if that is fine with both of you. –MuZemike 07:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the general issue to ANI as there had been a similar situation discussed there earlier. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On 10 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Slalom (video game), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Slalom was the first video game developed by UK-based video game company Rare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Slalom (video game).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RyukuX, an editor you blocked for a month for sockpuppetry is asking for an unblock. The sequence of unblock requests seems highly suspicious to me (i.e., trying to say anything to get unblocked), but I look for your input as the blocking admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the last unblock request was declined; while the last declining admin mistakenly cited WP:OFFER, he's only got a couple of weeks left in his 1-month block. I would wait and see what happens after the block expires. –MuZemike 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, got a serial IP vandal I need some help with. The user is putting redlinks into radio station articles and using different IPs (Verizon, Cox Cable and a library) in and around Norfolk, Virginia. Here are the links to what I can find...

• City of Chesapeake Library (216.54.1.206)
• Verizon Online LLC (96.225.183.71)
• Cox Communications (72.215.148.50)

There is only one we can really do anything about without ALOT of collaterial damage and that is the library. Perhaps you could semi-protect the others for awhile? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I issued a 1-week block on the latest IP; that's a whole lot of articles to semi-protect if I go that route, and I'm afraid I would be shutting out more people if I did that. –MuZemike 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, that is where the problem lies too. Too many articles, too many IPs, too much collaterial damage to do much protecting. :( I will keep an eye out and let you know what I find, but they appear to be hitting WNOR and WROX-FM several times with their multiple IPs. So you might be able to catch them watching those. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Super_Mario_RPG:_Legend_of_the_Seven_Stars is still open. (There's no rush: I know you're busy, and if you need some help with it, please feel free to ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know I still owe a response there. Basically, it's making sure my concerns have been handled (or at least explained). –MuZemike 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For reverting vandalism off my user page without even me gettin' to know! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your cleanup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions which was much needed. Mooch ass grassy ass! Jayron32 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today you blocked McAusten and he's now being disruptive on his talk page.[1][2] I warned him about removing the active block notice from his talk page,[3] but he's obviously not taking it well.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, his talk page has since been revoked by another admin. I will be watching him closely after his block expires, as I think I was way too lenient on my first block. –MuZemike 06:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I have been pondering whether or not to raise issue with the Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior articles. Dragon Quest is currently on the GOCE requests page and I recently did the GOCE copyedit of Dragon Warrior.

The issue is that there seems to be a rather large amount of text that is a repeat of the Dragon Warrior article. More importantly it describes Dragon Quest as being released under a different name in America, something that seem incorrect, as Dragon Quest was not released until after 'Dragon Warrior III according to the text in Dragon Quest and the timeline.

The lead sentence states "Dragon Quest (ドラゴンクエスト?), published as Dragon Warrior in North America until 2005, is a series of internationally best-selling console role-playing video game (RPG) titles ...".

In the infobox it states "First release: Dragon Warrior May 27, 1986"

The article states:

• "After Dragon Warrior, players must visit a church (known as a House of Healing in the NES translations) and talk to a priest or nun to save the games' progress; in Dragon Warrior, players had to talk to a king to save their progress, though the first two Dragon Quest titles for NES use a password save system."
• "In Dragon Warrior, the Hero was the descendant of Erdrick, who follows in the footsteps of Erdrick to reach the Dragonlord's Castle and confront the Dragonlord. In Dragon Warrior II, the heroes are descendants of Erdrick, and also the Hero from Dragon Warrior. They explore the expanded world of Torland, including the continent of Alefgard. At the end of Dragon Warrior III, the King of Alefgard bestows the country's highest honor, the "Order of Erdrick", upon the Hero. In Dragon Warrior III, Erdrick's origins are revealed; the chronological order of the first three games is Dragon Quest III, Dragon Quest I, and then Dragon Quest II. After the events of Dragon Warrior III, the hero's armaments are renamed as the Erdrick (or Loto) Sword and Armor in Dragon Warrior I and Dragon Warrior II."

There appears to be a complete scrambling of the timeline and releases, at first it seems as if they are released together, with a different title in the USA, then it appears as if it is a continuation post-Dragon Warrior III, then it goes back to being a side-by-side description of the comparison of timelines in the order of the game releases.

It seems as if they are almost exactly the same thing, though with minor differences in game saves and character timelines. Surely this would be better addressed by something like "Dragon Quest (known in the USA as Dragon Warrior until 1990)" and then simply describe Dragon Quest and add a section with the differences? I realise that there may be a case for a separate article for each, but it seems strange that they are almost identical.

I have asked Jinnai to join this conversation, and will remove the article from the GOCE requests page for now. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. It may confuse any newbie to the series, but that's why I am asking for a copyedit so it may clarify things.

For the release timeline, look at the Dragon Quest media page. It gives the year of release and under each section any additional notes (usually title changes). The main page also has a more simplistic timeline for the initial release dates.

Essentially

• Rhe first 3 games + game #7 have never been released under a Dragon Quest title outside Japan; only Dragon Warrior.
• In addition, game #4 has been released under 2 titles in North America, Dragon Warrior IV and Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen.
• Games #5 and 6 were never released in their SNES version; they have been released on the Nintendo DS.
• Games #8 and 9 have been released with normal translations in a normal timeframe. Nothing notable here.

And that is just the main series. Dragon Quest Monsters has had name changes and the one Mystery Dungeon game released here had a name change.陣内_Jinnai 00:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How is a copy-editor, with probably no experience of the games, expected to sort that out? Surely that is down to the regular editors, or someone from the projects listed on the talk page. I appreciate that you need copy-editing, but we cannot work miracles :¬)

Perhaps placing a version of the first table from that list into the article, or a condensed prose version of it, would be easier? That would allow readers (and copy-editors!) to follow exactly what is going on. There is also the problem of the Quest page stating that Warrior was the first release in the infobox, should it not be "Quest"? i.e. keep the two separate in their respective articles, with the date of the first release of Quest in the Quest article? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think if people have been confused by the prose, leaving it to the prose to explain the complex naming history is likely to just make things more confusing. I'm not really sure how to go about simplifying something that's truly this convoluted and as far as I know, no other FA-quality series in the Video games Wikiproject has such a convulsed naming history (although some of the lower-quality ones do). That's exactly why I need someone who isn't familiar with the series to help copyedit. There is no precedent I know of to go by for clarification.陣内_Jinnai 00:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I will do the copy-edit later tonight, or first thing tomorrow, though I would appreciate some more clarity in the article before I start. It is always difficult to balance copy-editing against editing, especially with unfamiliar topics. I will read through the timeline again before I start. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted it at Talk:Dragon Quest#Title naming to keep MuZemike's page clear and place it where its more relevant.陣内_Jinnai 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mike - Just to let you know that I have finished the copy-edit and left a series of note on the article talk page: Talk:Dragon_Quest#GOCE_copyedit_August_2011

I do not know if Jinnai will be able to understand my reasonings, or if I am correct on some of the things I have said there, so perhaps you can assist in any corrections that need making. Thanks for the efforts in helping sort it out. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to it when I can. –MuZemike 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, thank you in advance for the review, especially for its thoroughness; it's very much appreciated. –MuZemike 19:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

An edit was done by someone to Dragon Warrior that has impacted on the quality of the article, and on the copy-edit that I did. You might need to have a look at it [5]. In particular things like turning present tense to past and adding ; and , when they should not be there caught my attention. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that causes concern for me is the lead, but IMO that could be expanded to 3 paragraphs instead of leaving it at two; currently there is 36KB of prose in that article, so I think we can easily afford to do that. –MuZemike 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not close that ANI thread yourself, and let it move out of sight silently. Do you really wanna talk? -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Must be a nice selfstyled talkpage somewhere you maintain. Well, don't complain to me when you didn't get the message. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What ANI thread? Are you talking about the disruption by User:Vote (X) for Change? –MuZemike 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it must be about the one regarding Tobias Conradi. I don't think I have anything else to say there, as it's clear that people still want to support the ban but yet keep the edits. I thought banned editors were supposed to be banned, but to me, it seems that they want it both ways. I interpret that as another double standard, but saying anything else in that regard will only serve to inflame the situation worse, as I get the gist that nobody wants to hear it. That and I am still frustrated with what has happened with Template:Cleanup-link rot for just about the same reasons I mentioned above. –MuZemike 23:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the ANI thread you started yourself. I'm not here to discuss it (did you read my question at all, or the thread?). I'd say: best thing would be that, after reading your ANI thing yourself, close it yourself. That would be the least harmful. Nice talkpage you have. Really. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, then, I closed it. However, if I get reverted, then I can't do anything. I don't want to start any fight or anything, nor was that my intention. If I did something bad, then nothing I will additionally say is going to help that; I'm just going to let it go.

Re: my talk page, I was going to change it just a little again; actually, I shunted the formatting to a subpage mostly per Jimbo; look at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Simplifying - ban the div tag? for stuff on that. The intent was to make the wiki-markup a little easier for others so they don't get flustered when they post something. At least to me, it looks a lot cleaner. –MuZemike 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on my page. Please could you tell me the link to the forum where banning editors is discussed or voted on etc...I would like to start getting involved in supporting editors who are facing "Permanent Bans". I don't agree with it in principle. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, ban discussions generally take place on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, though they also can occur on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There is also our banning policy (talk page) that go over our policy and bans in general. –MuZemike 17:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

108.70.14.166 was recently blocked by you for their addition of unsourced material and POV on Silent Hill articles and The Darkness (comics), but now that the block is up they have resumed the activity by reintroducing unsourced material-POV on Silent Hill Homecoming and unsourced material on other articles. Hula Hup (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 06:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this confession is sufficient excuse for a CheckUser? The declaration of intent, "the goals of both accounts are the same", is a bit worrisome, considering the career of the master account and its sock, 111AFK (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This guy is denying the CU evidence and needs removal of TP access.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone actually run a CU? I don't see an SPI. But, in any event, I've declined the unblock request (the story isn't credible, and even if it is, doesn't justify an unblock). Xe's only made one unblock request, and xe said xe's leaving (most likely this was a school computer, and now it's time to go be childish somewhere else). Unless xe starts posting attacks or spurious unblock requests, I think the matter is done. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did run one, as evidenced by my unblock request decline of TerraByte20. If it is a school, that that school, and the students in it, have been doing nothing but blatantly vandalizing Wikipedia for the past several months. –MuZemike 06:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check there. I feel like I've seen either a policy or a community discussion before on hard-blocking school IPs for like 6 months to a year, but I can't find anything definitive in a search. Does that ring any bells, and, if so, would it be appropriate here? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the IP is not hardblocked. People wishing to edit from that school can create an account at home and edit. It's in effect a {{schoolblock}}, but users don't need to know what was blocked in order to prevent outing the students' location (hence why I have {{checkuserblock}}ed the IP). –MuZemike 00:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should thank you for reviewing my GAN, regardless of the outcome. Just for clarification, I was attempting to recreate StarCraft II's GA success, but I initially misunderstood the history, because in 2008, StarCraft was nominated for a good topic, but I hadn't realized that the sequel was not a part of that collaboration at that point in time. Why I nominated Dota 2 so early on is because I've done some massive expansion and clean-ups, at the urging from the peer review. My reviewers told me it was about ready for a GAN, but I must concur with what you said. Simply judging by the changes made in the last week, it's not stable enough to be considered that level.

But tell me, what would your impression be for it to be bumped up to a B-class article? DarthBotto _talk•cont 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, B-Class might be fine, and I would even argue A-Class as that is separate from GA technically, but as far as GA and FA are concerned, it needs to be stable, and you cannot have that with a game that is still in development. I'd certainly ask for a B-Class assessment, though, as I think that's as good as you can get for right now. –MuZemike 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I already posted an assessment request here, requesting B-Class. So you would be in support of the article moving for A-Class at this stage? DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you made an individual review for R.C. Pro-Am. While I agree it had an unfair review, I dont't really get why you didn't use a community reassessment. GamerPro64 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's my first time having to deal with a failed GAN, but I would think having another single person would be preferable over a community reassessment. However, every GAR I have started in the past has been individual, but it was regarding delisting current GAs and not disputing failed GANs. –MuZemike 22:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you would block their access to edit their own talk page when:

1. They never even edited it, so how could they abuse it?
2. They have only 1 live edit and 0 deleted edits.
3. Their talk page doesn't and never has existed.

I get these reasons from both Mediawiki itself, and the Toolserver. Trust me, I'm using REAL logic here, bud. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is from a serial sockmaster who has been known to patently abuse his own talk page in the past. We don't need to deal with that. –MuZemike 22:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. CoD with several banned users is to solipsism-block their named accounts on sight. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess the block summary not saying it was a sockpuppet of a banned user made me think it was a unfair block. LikeLakers2 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

lol @ LikeLakers. Killiondude (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, It's actually JtV again. Too obvious - Alison ^❤ 22:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, don't do anything else! The accounts are blocked, WP:DENY, end of story. –MuZemike 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Long time, no hear. Sorry to bother you, but can you block 116.0.4.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It is being used right now by the notorious Indonesian misinformation vandal, returning after about half a month. Please do your action ASAP because he's rampaging right now. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. –MuZemike 07:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I could use a quick CU check at WP:SPI on a case involving Bokan995. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Now two socks but the case page isn't showing at SPI, just the old case. Page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokan995. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Just thought I'd point your attention to this case - some clarification was requested. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for wading through that mess of a report. Hopefully that range block will put a stop to it for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in the midst of moving all "Ghosts 'n Goblins" related stuff to "Ghosts'n Goblins". I'm having redirect issues with the following:

• Ghosts 'n Goblins to Ghosts'n Goblins
• Category:Ghosts 'n Goblins to Category:Ghosts'n Goblins
• Makaimura (WonderSwan game) to Makaimura for WonderSwan

tia Despatche (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, I would make sure those are what the actual titles are before you start moving them; Capcom should have stuff regarding naming, and if not then you will need to start an WP:RM for them.

Also, with regards to that last one, that is not proper naming convention, whereas the original naming is good as-is; please see Wikipedia:Article titles for more information on that. –MuZemike 07:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it just a bit more, Makaimura (WonderSwan game) can probably be redirected to Ghosts'n Goblins (series); there is nothing substantive there at all in that article (minus the pretty infobox, non-free boxart, navbox, and "Makaimura for WonderSwan (魔界村 for WonderSwan?) is a game for the WonderSwan." –MuZemike 07:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They're all fine, please see the Ghosts'n Goblins series talk page about the spacing. The issue is that, after having changed everything at this point, Ghosts'n Goblins redirects to Ghosts'n Goblins (series) (because of the redirects) when this should not be.

About "Makaimura for WonderSwan", that is the specific name of the game. See also F-Zero for Game Boy Advance, although that game was a new entry instead of a remake. No, I don't think Makaimura for WonderSwan really needs its own article, and that a mention on the original Ghosts'n Goblins (the 1985 game itself) page would suffice. Despatche (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it's just odd that it would be named as such. I know there are exceptions; I just wouldn't assume that. –MuZemike 08:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it's strange, but "Makaimura for WonderSwan" is most definitely the title. The main box essentially writes "Makaimura for WonderSwan" twice in the same logo (which also appears on the cartridge and manual), as does the title screen of the game itself. jp.wiki also insists that "魔界村 for WonderSwan" is the complete title of the game, though I'm not sure how much that holds.

Otherwise, would you really rather just have Makaimura for WonderSwan in another GnG article (again, I'd recommend the first game's article)? And what about the other pages to be moved? Despatche (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have not looked at this in detail with regards to the naming – I'm basically saying what I am observing right now; I'm not asking that you take it as definitive in any way. –MuZemike 10:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that about the Makaimura for WonderSwan article, but what's going to happen to the other articles in the meantime, being the main issue? The redirect issue has stopped me from completely making the change to "Ghosts'n Goblins" across the various articles, so we have problems like Ghosts'n Goblins redirecting to the series article instead of going straight to the actual Ghosts'n-Goblins-the-1985-arcade-game article (where Ghosts'n Goblins should be going), and the established series category still at "Ghosts 'n Goblins" even when the articles are now at the "Ghosts'n Goblins" category-that-doesn't-quite-exist-yet. Despatche (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

68.37.56.163; same addition of unsourced content to various articles (not only Silent Hill-related), same idolization of a fan translation of the Japanese Silent Hill guide book Lost Memories, same idolization of the United States (substitution of Japanese characters' names with the name they have in the American release of the game), same blanking of personal talk page, same use of capitals to convey emphasis, same use of a random gender without knowing what gender the person she refers to is, same personal attacks, same attitude, same misunderstanding of what an administrator is, same Internet provider (Comcast). The only difference is she now puts a space between her comments and her signatures and edits from Montclair, New Jersey, which is bordered by Pennsylvania, where Pittsburgh, the place from where she had been editing previously, is. Hula Hup (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 03:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this? Hula Hup (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is the f word spelled with five letters? SlightSmile 20:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Way to not respect others' WP:ENGVAR. DMacks (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My intent was a touch of humour with no disrespect whatsoever. btw I went into the link and I don't understand how variations of English applies here. Oh and thanks for the compliment. SlightSmile 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Intent of humor on my part also:) Apparently not successful:( DMacks (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That one went way over my head. Sorry. That's the problem they talk about regarding joking around in writing as opposed to in person. And I'm sure it'l happen again. I'm not big on using emoticons so sometimes I do get taken the wrong way. Like a few days ago ... SlightSmile 15:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ihateantisemites is using 93.186.16.0/21 for abuse.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the Wonder Boy in Monster Land flier that you've uploaded because that's not the arcade flier, even though the site you took it from claimed it is, which was wrong. It was an ad for the Amiga/Atari ST version. As far as I know the arcade version never had an official overseas version (the only English versions emulated are a bootleg and a fan-translation, same difference), so I uploaded the Japanese flyer from Sega's Japanese site. It looks better anyway. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather use a console cover, if that is the case, such as for the Commodore or Amiga versions, as that is similar to the other cover. The Japanese flyer doesn't look very good IMO and doesn't do much at all to identify itself to English-speaking audiences. –MuZemike 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Want to have a look at it again? I don't think there's too much more to add unless they make some huge anouncement between now and the 15th. I don't know if we need to not the virtual console release as they are the same games, but if we do, it shouldn't be too hard to do.陣内_Jinnai 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How much collateral damage would there be from rangeblocking 60.52.0.0/17? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind, got the answer elsewhere, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On August 2, you blocked User:RyukuX for sockpuppetry. The user made 3 unblock requests, all declined; talk page access was eventually removed. Then, on August 27, another user, User:VERY-GNAW-TY-X placed, as their very first edit to Wikipedia, an offensive unblock request on RyukuX's talk page. As a result, the RyukuX was reblocked for 1 more month, with talk page access reinstated, under the very reasonable assumption that VERY-GNAW-TY-X was a sockpuppet of RyukuX. Now, RyukuX is claiming that VERY-GNAW-TY-X is actually a totally different person who placed that offensive comment as a trolling effort to damage RyukuX (it's allegedly someone they know from off Wikipedia). All of this can be seen in the most recent unblock request, which basically asks that the original end date (today) for the block be honored. The user has authorized us running a CU to determine if (at least by technical data) they are, in fact, the same person. Would you mind doing so? If the two accounts are the same, it's of course an indef, if not, it seems that we may be willing to consider an unblock with no more second chances. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very much  Possible, bordering on  Likely, that VERY-GNAW-TY-X (talk · contribs) and LongTrend192 (talk · contribs) are him. Moreover, I conclude the same for the following accounts, all of which are  Confirmed as each other:

• Dorce2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tavo214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DarkUnknown1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MuZemike; while you were running this, Amtaulic unblocked. I've asked xyr to consider reblocking given this new evidence. Tavo214's edits are clearly the same website promotion as RyukuX was doing before, so either RyukuX is socking or xe's working very closely with someone else to proomte this website. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. The latter can also very well be the case. –MuZemike 17:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Related to this nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. I haven't had a chance yet. I'd like to condense the "Reception" section some. Everything else is in great shape. Real life has been very busy and I've only had time to pop in every now and then. I hope to have some time next week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

I see lots of oversighted items on the history recently - are those all the Vote X dude? Can't we do something about him permanently (involving his local police ideally) by this point since he's literally trying to harass us and just quietly removing things isn't helping? CycloneGU (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RevDeleted, not oversighted. It's obvious he's copypasting previous discussions for the purposes of disruption, so I'm denying him that opportunity. –MuZemike 22:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, there are also others there which were also RevDeleted (see User talk:Toddst1's edit history for instance), that are part of Dragoncon's coordinated attack on Wikipedians. –MuZemike 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant RevDel, terminology Fail on my part. But still, I'd think by now Vote X could be part of a harassment claim; you personally would have a good case against him, IIRC, since he brings up the same things trying to put you to shame. But I am no lawyer, it's just a layman's thought. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Thought I should make you aware of this that somebody just posted on my talk page. I've deleted it from the public archives just to be on the safe side but from what I can see it seems to be about a Wiki conversation of some sort?--5 albert square (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How about all the others? In any case, it doesn't make a difference; it's bloody obvious the GNAA is out to get me. –MuZemike 03:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that it didn't go unnoticed, and was pretty cool. - SudoGhost 03:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you talk a look at history of User_talk:REmmet1984.Does all those users are his sockpuppets or it someone else that put him in a bad light?--Shrike (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Two more now  Confirmed and indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 06:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is, if this wasn't obvious enough. –MuZemike 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another question.What do you think about this users Special:Contributions/Abutoum and Special:Contributions/Dalai_lama_ding_dong do you think they are new users?Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, they appear  Unrelated. However,  Confirmed another sock of REmmet1984:

• Cmdciac (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Rangeblock now issued. –MuZemike 21:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Rainfall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Rainfall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crabbattler (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think these two accounts are related? User:NNU-2-05100130 User:Nnu-1001-05100111? My76Strat (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but they could also be part of some school project, so I am AGFing at the moment on that. –MuZemike 08:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Very good consideration on your part. I wish I hadn't been so quick to assume otherwise. Thanks for your good example, which I hope to emulate as I also improve. Best - My76Strat (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a poke if you have some time the tool is backlogged. Mlpearc powwow 17:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added you as a co-nom. I've brought it up to FAC.陣内_Jinnai 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care either way about the dates, but if we go standard format then I'd like a bot to come through and change them because that's a lot of changes that would need to take place.陣内_Jinnai 21:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as we are consistent across the board; we can't have some of them have the standard format, while others in the same article have YYYY-MM-DD. –MuZemike 21:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care either way for what format to use.陣内_Jinnai 18:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Can you clarify something on this case for me: does Felipe Garcia == Greattrial and the others? Like, should I merge the two cases together? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be coincidental as far as the relation is concerned. However, all accounts are blocked, and that's the big thing. –MuZemike 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Astounding, you responded to that so quickly that i even doubt my teacher on this subject. and yes i bet that was us earlier. The school project was to alter a wiki page and see how fast someone notices. Just astounding MuZemike and keep up the good job. sorry for any inconvience we caused. 108.59.118.195 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't do it again, or you may see an even better response. –MuZemike 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't, I felt bad for just changing info about a good game. Again, Good job and sorry. I'm gone... 108.59.118.195 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your efforts to remove vandalism, and the overall prevention of fraud herein, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello: Nice, fast work as to blocking User:Drindl, a sockpuppet for banned User:Wiki brah. User:Verrat82 also appears to be a sockpuppet of that same account. Further, I suspect new User:DerUntergangFanatic82, as being the same, as well. Anyway, again, I thank you for your efforts to remove vandalism, and fraud herein. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E7%99%BD%E3%81%84%E7%8C%AB&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

Hi, I travel a lot and I often find myself in hotels with blocked ips. Also I am almost always on dynamic IP ranges which also have blocks - sometimes more often than not. IP Block exempt would be helpful in such situations for me. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been on any blocked ranges for quite a while, and I have checked that many times before (which was why I removed the IPBE in the first place). I don't see a reason to grant it when that has not been the case. –MuZemike 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your rangeblock related to this nonsense. There is a related follow-up SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC which your comments would be welcome at. Toddst1 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you do a check on this unholy trinity:

• Wimpyblownhard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wimpyblownhard69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.65.70.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Obvious socks, but the IP (currently auto-blocked) just came out of a six-month checkuser block, so I guess it's a well-established customer and a longer block may called for. Favonian (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IP is now hardblocked 1 year. –MuZemike 02:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ensuring that the boomerang operated. I suspect that there will be another spate in the next few days as there is clear off-wiki canvassing going on & those whom I suspect are organising it are far too smart to edit the articles themselves. Sooner or later, though, they'll be caught out also. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is my professional opinion that the page hereafter referred to as "Yooda" is, in fact not a "blatant hoax" and is, in reality, an article that was created to inform and educate a select audience of "philosophers" about the return of the aforementioned "Yooda," so please refrain from obstructing the "creative processes" of these "philosophers" by not "removing" the aforementioned "Yooda" article.

Thank you

ReturnOfTheYooda (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia and not some venue for people like you to post make-believe stuff that was completely fabricated and madeup. And if you continue, we will have no choice but to block you. Regards, –MuZemike 01:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind doing a CU to see if this is really a master of ReturnOfTheYooda?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The account is over 6 months old, Jasper. --Bsadowski1 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And you can't run CUs without good evidence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The master may be stale, but the fact that they made the same articles and have similar usernames is pretty strong evidence.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They created articles with the same title, but the content of the articles are extremely different. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I'm requesting CU - Yooda may have been a rapper in ReturnOfTheYooda's mind a long time ago, and the usernames are similar. The edit filter logs are also similar.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And as I just said, the Yooda21 account is too old to compare against. --Bsadowski1 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So is this really socking if it's real (In other words, what if the account weren't stale?)? (This is a policy question).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure ReturnOfTheYooda had the rapper in mind when he wrote about a fake Star Wars character. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Check their edit filter logs, or show me how the wikitext of that was different from the edit filter log.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Yooda21 created an article about a rapper who goes by the nickname "Yooda." It was speedily deleted as non-notable. ReturnOfTheYooda created an article about a fake character in Star Wars, Yooda. The two users are only related by their usernames and titles of article, and there is no evidence that the two accounts were operated by the same person. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you check their filter logs? Yooda21 has a page creation entry in his log - is that the same as what you're talking about?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Jasper, you're the one who is not listening. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We're clearly not on the same page. The view for me is that ReturnOfTheYooda made a page that was about a Star Wars character (fake). Yooda21 has an edit filter log entry here, that indicates that we're both right on closer examination. The phrases I'm talking about is basically the first 3 sentences of the paragraph. But, since it's stale, no use in blocking.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This filter hit from Yooda21 is on the rapper, while the now-deleted article from ReturnOfTheYooda (Its entirety is in the below section.) is on a fabricated Star Wars character. There is reason to believe that they're not the same person; in any case, Yooda21 cannot be checked. –MuZemike 02:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You might (if you haven't already) CU User:General Fawkes. Claimed User:ReturnOfTheYooda was his/her "son" (none of which I believe). Might be able to clean up some socks with that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another CU already did. –MuZemike 02:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, just wanted to make sure. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedian,

I just wanted to you to know that my son, ReturnOfTheYooda informed me of your crime against his article. My unfortunate son suffers from mental retardation and all he has wanted to do in his life is to create a wikipedia page for his imaginary friend "Yooda." When he saw that you had deleted his page, it broke his little heart and he ran crying to me, effectively breaking my heart as well. I implore you, as a wikipedia admin to please rectify this situation and allow my dear son to create his article so he will be happy.

Best regards,

General Fawkes

General Fawkes (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If you really are his dad, then you need to look after him quite a bit more. We can't do that for you. –MuZemike 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He can put it in his userspace, at this location, where he can do what he wishes. →Στc. 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no use userfying an article that consists of nothing but: "Yooda is a fictional creature that is three inches tall, has three ears, and is the color blue. He is Yoda's distant cousin, and he has traveled to our galaxy to protect Earth from the evil Empire!" –MuZemike 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to thank you for starting that. I had created an outline of issues (at User talk:Sven Manguard/Sandbox/1) a while back, but nothing ever happened with it. You should know that Skomorokh, last time I checked, has no interest in being a coordinator again. I also have no interest in it. Tony1 might, but I don't talk to him anymore. All of this is to say that there's going to be a major brain drain in the coordinators this year, unless Tony1 steps up and takes the lead. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean the comments at bahamut's talk page, I mean the clinical tone of the request at ANI. Semper Fi is indeed extremely appropriate when a Marine dies.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I got two things in which I would say. First, it is appropriate that condolences be directed to the deceased user's talk page. Second, I don't understand what else should have been asked there at ANI, but I don't think anyone there even inadvertently tried to offend him, as I think the poster on that thread tried to be as careful and neutral as possible so as not to offend him. –MuZemike 07:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete all those articles on novels? They used to be very helpful to me and luckily they are still cached. I have no business in editing Wikipedia or crititizing your judgement, but to me it seems everything was better when there were still articles on the novels. Please fill me in on your reasoning, so my slight feeling of anger towards you will disappear. Greetings Nuesbi (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They were created by a banned user who has had a long history of copyright violations and plagiarism. You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for the entire laundry list of problems this user has caused. –MuZemike 17:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken down the {{underconstruction}} tag at Dragon Warrior. I'd suggest you go through it and do a copyedit check before we bring this to someone whose likely less familiar with the series (since it seemed grammar issues were a big reason it failed in addition to the 1 source and dates). As far as dates go, I'll try look for a bot to handle that.陣内_Jinnai 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just got several of those books a couple of days ago, including Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life, I think that book is the only one that has anything substantive on the game, as far as I can see. –MuZemike 22:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at Power-Up right now, and I'll be making a few changes and additions. A couple of things are IMO a little on the close side as far as paraphrasing are concerned, but I'll go through it. –MuZemike 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW we no longer use the term "Famicom" and "Super Famicom" anymore in game articles unless there is a clear reason to do so. That was a fairly recent decision that went into the video game guidelines after several copyediters had reported not understanding why Famicom was used when it just made things more difficult for them to understand.陣内_Jinnai 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Maybe it's more hardwired for me to differentiate between the two, as they are two separate pieces of hardware. –MuZemike 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They are, but to the average person they won't be able to tell the difference and if you start going into technical specifications and reasons their eyes might glaze over. There may be specific instances for using Famicom, but the only major hardware change from the two versions was the batter-backup system which isn't really a part of the Famicom or NES as both are capable of loading battery saves.陣内_Jinnai 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MuZemike. I saw that User:KFChayer was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Spotfixer. There's a strong chance that the Spotfixer case is connected somehow to the User:Malaiya case, which also has multiple sockpuppets. User:Reading mad is a confirmed sockpuppet of Malaiya. One of the traits of the Malaiya case was that the user liked to post links to his personal youtube channel in his edit summaries such as with this one. Noticed that the user is a fan of "KFC". This behavior is spread across the other accounts connected to that case. As Reading mad was the second editor to user KFChayer's user page and the first to edit his talk page, it seems likely the two are connected. It's possible that KFChayer was singled out because of the "KFC" in the user name but seemed far fetched. Through the link to the youtube site it was possible to identify the user, who was just some young little kid. It's possible some friends of his are doing the same thing. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I already checked Malaiya, and that user doesn't look related to Spotfixer. The editing patterns also look quite different from Spotfixer's usual MO. –MuZemike 01:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, could you semiprotect Pauley Perrette‎, please? Seems it is getting some vandalism of late, two edits had to be oversighted. I would suggest a week to start out with, but whatever you decide is fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

" Regarding your mass postings

While I know you mean good in what you are trying to do, but you should know (as you may or may not realize) that there are specific venues in which to voice your concerns – WT:AFD was most certainly one of them. However, what you did is considered (by myself also) as a bit on the disruptive side, and I think you were aware of that.

Wikipedia is a collaborative as well as communal effort – not an effort in which you employ petty politics and drive others away because of your disagreements. While we appreciate your voicing of your concerns, you don't need to shout it into a megaphone and disrupt everyone else in the process. There are enough people who watch WT:AFD and other related talk pages to give good opinions on the matter.

I believe in WP:BEFORE as much as the other person does, and I think articles should be taken do deletion only after most other good faith efforts of sourcing and non-deletion edits have occurred. However, good faith is the key thing there, and while I know there have been some users who have blatantly disregarded WP:BEFORE (a few of which I believe are now banned from Wikipedia), there are others who do take the time to make those checks before proposing deletion. There is no need to paint everything with such a broad brush. –MuZemike 07:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC) "

• It was never my intention to be disruptive to Wikipedia, and it never will be. I added to discussions on discussion pages in a copy/paste manner that could have been done more concisely. The discussion pages I posted to were highly correlated with content and discussions occurring in those pages. The purpose of my intentions, located at Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion— Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process, was to promote discussion about improvements to the AfD nomination process. In the future, however, I've learned that it's better to provide a brief summary regarding a discussion on other highly-relevant discussion pages that are highly correlated with a discussion and invite users to participate in the centralized discussion. In this manner, the same discussion isn't dispersed in several areas, which makes sense. In the interest of keeping this message brief, please refer to: Administrators' noticeboard for more information regarding this matter. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You've probably seen IttyBittyMe! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) but it should be linked as a ILT sock to the relevant pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

hey can u run a CU on YoodaIsBack! i think he is a sock puppet of General Fawkes and ReturnOfTheYooda, i thought i could ask you for help because i saw that these two users were abusing your page awhile back

thanks

Trojanhelmetman (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've ran the check, and he is blocked, along with you. –MuZemike 00:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

...along with two others. –MuZemike 00:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

At which point would a rangeblock become feasible? I mean, one could keep blocking them as they pop up, but it's tedious to chase them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no range in which to block, yet. –MuZemike 00:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was User:Troller101 blocked? I lurked through their contributions and talk page and there were no warnings given to them and nothing that warranted an immediate block. --Jean Calleo (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts: good hand-bad hand disruption via an IP. Led to a spate of extreme abuse via IPs and open proxies; see [6] and [7], where he says that he was a reincarnation of blocked user User:Yourname. –MuZemike 15:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ohh. Thanks, and sorry for bothering. --Jean Calleo (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at these. SlightSmile 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I seem to remember you've dealt with SyberiaWinx / Fragments of Jade several times in the past, and I'd like your opinion on this matter. I'm afraid the guy was indeed innocent (of that, anyway). Erigu (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another video game to move around. Today's subject is Shadow Land (arcade game), which should be at Shadowland (arcade game) (but there's a redirect); I don't know where this space ever came from, the game's title screen clearly says "SHADOWLAND". No, that's not really what I came here for.

The real problem is that there's almost nothing to justify it being at "Shadowland" in the first place; we really should just move it to Yōkai Dōchūki instead. There's this incredibly vague "--YOKAI--" also on the title screen, we don't really need another "Shadowland", and it's not at all clear that the game was even released (it could very well be a prototype). Genpei Tōma Den is a somewhat similar case, although there was no such "prototype" but an actual English release for it (though I don't think the game itself was touched, so). Despatche (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look into it when I can (basically responding so this stays on the talk page before the bot archives it). –MuZemike 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Noticed that you blocked this account as the master of a sock farm. I've had my eyes on him for a while, and suspect that Xyz or die (talk · contribs) is of the same ilk. Could you have a look please? Favonian (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks  Unrelated to me. However, the following are  Confirmed also as Wahwahpedal:

• Liquidcheeze (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2.5 Mad Libs Men (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blindy McNosight (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nuculear Bush (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 4077Pierce (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Awwhellno (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Germanotta Ciccone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Τονυικαη (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zalinda Zenobia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• This speech is my recital (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Come back Zinc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Banana skin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Awesome Possum (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Better the Gerbil You Know (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Benevolent Malevolent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Inem pelayan sexy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Inherit the Cheese (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pants on the Ground (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EVƎNT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The WikiPresident (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Munchma Quchi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Know Your NME (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fresprinsbellair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Look ma, no hands (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• InterFunky (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• El D'oh Pa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Miles Morales (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• A.Blinkin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Boneka (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rijontiang (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• See you in tea (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sugeng Winarto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wal Ta Yenrotta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Earworm Samurai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Norweigan Word (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Botol (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Speaker of the House (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The reason these aren't tagged is because the database is not allowing to even make edits to these pages without giving me database errors. Hopefully, when the servers get their acts together, I can. As far as an actual sockmaster is concerned, I cannot locate one so far. –MuZemike 22:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Favonian, I also suspect User:Xyz or die is related. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpigs (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Grimley (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Grimley. Piriczki (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the general similarity in their editing patterns, there is a very specific reason why I point the finger at Xyz or die. As may be seen on an old version of Wahwahpedal's user page, Fastily and I had both observed some rather disturbing edits, in which Wahwahpedal apparently hijacked some (rather useless) articles by replacing their contents and then renaming them. I went through the exercise of reinstating the original articles by splitting the edit histories, and then, a few days later, Xyz nominates Huwico and Ideafixa for deletion. Also for the Ikeda Jeans/Lance Crother pair there is an "shared intest", witness [8] and [9]. Favonian (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I had his talk page on my watchlist when I saw his little girly threat and was considering whether or not to make my "first block". It's a shame because it looks like he used to be a productive editor but decided to throw a hissy fit over some images that got deleted. I even told him what he could do to make the images usable on Wikipedia but that obviously wasn't good enough for him.

As a side note, the next time I see an email address on someone's user page I think I'm going to tell them that it's pointless to put it there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the block notice, it was Hut 8.5 removing his talk page access. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this user really knew how to communicate with other people and to be honest they were probably going to do something that warranted a block at some point. Incidentally did you know that deleting images makes endangered animals die? [10] [11] Hut 8.5 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I add that all of this is over one image deletion, in which the only reason he gave to oppose the deletion was [12], which is still rather weak. It's probably something related to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory that has caused him to snap in that fashion. –MuZemike 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

His deleted talk page edits (yes, he tried to WP:VANISH, despite his attempt to request to WP:REVOKE his license) tell a similar disturbing story, and this was back in 2008. –MuZemike 01:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply to your email. I did not check my email for a few days. However, I see that the unblock has been done, and I am happy with that: my concerns have been answered adequately. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

He's requested unblock, and I've put it on hold. Very miminal evidence to base your conclusion on. Is there something I don't see? (You can email me on this if it's sensitive). Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete that? At the moment I've got a false accusation of sock puppetry which a quick run of the CU would clear? I was told by the accusing party to run one. I'm so damn confused. Can't you just help me instead of deleting stuff I've been told to do. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete anything; I moved it up to the above section. –MuZemike 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You said you werent gonna run an IP check. I need this wiped off my record as it wasn't me, and I dunno what to do :S. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the appointment round by submitting additional questions to candidates. Given that the candidates have spent time fielding your questions, it would be appreciated if you would comment on their handling of your questions publicly or privately. –xeno^talk 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Template:Facepalm
• Facepalm ... Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are your deleting articles like London Canoe Slalom Invitational, Globalwheels may have been in violation of a ban but that does not mean that it was not a valuable article. An article like this should be judged on its own merits, and if it is notable and does not contain any copyright violations, why should it be deleted? I would request that this article is reinstated. --Kafuffle (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG (talk · contribs) is banned from this encyclopedia, and our banning policy is that we delete articles created by banned users who willfully violate their ban. Any non-banned user is free to recreate such articles, but I cannot restore them in this situation, as it only encourages him to keep coming back. –MuZemike 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are those who think being an administrator is like being a cop. IMV, it's more like being a janitor. We've got another poo-flinger, as it seems; see this user's every contribution. Personal attacks, unilateral edits and assertions without support...off to a very bad start, as it seems. Perhaps some corrective guidance is in order…? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping-CLENG! Thanks much. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After some additional comments from Piriczki regarding Xyz or die (talk · contribs), I have to decided to formalize thinks by opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahwahpedal. Favonian (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think so. See here and here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Picker78 is now indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 00:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Tremendous. Let's hope s/he gets the message. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

…aaaaand it looks like not! See here and here. Sheesh! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, can you please revoke Picker78's talk page access? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revoked. Socks have also been blocked with a range now blocked. –MuZemike 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You pathetic idiot, Picker78 never wrote this shit. He is an atheist, you know. Remember that you indefinitely blocked him right after this, which he never wrote. He would have never written anything like this! -- LowRider69 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fer sher, fer sher. And Picker78 would never start a talk page comment by calling someone a pathetic idiot, or select a user name such as yours! Dude: It's over. You're done. Run along, now, the grownups are writing an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] ... —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

…and again… —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello M. In going thru my watchlist I came across this IP 78.147.29.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which just began editing today. While I am willing to AGF as the edits, so far, seem innocent I did want to make you aware of the bells that went off for me. I fear that this may be the return of KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the following reasons. The IP went right to tennis articles. Based on this [17] they clearly aren't a newbie. As I looked at this page Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of KnowIG I saw that the IP fits directly into one of the ranges used by K in the past. Now if this were just a blocked user I would be happy to wait until things go sour - and if they didn't then so much the better. But, since K is also banned I thought that I should report what I know ASAP. I came to you since the IP reverted one of your edits. I will also leave this message at the blocking admins talk page. I saw your message that you are busy so I know that you may not get to this right away. Also if there is a noticeboard that you would prefer me to report this to just let me know and I will be happy to do so. If I am in error for going to far with my conclusions than my apologies. In any event thanks for your time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Related to this, the IP address also edited an article about notability for tennis. knowig has a now blocked sock that edited Australian Paralympic tennis articles and the IP address was in the same area. --23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him alright, revert, block, and delete if necessary. –MuZemike 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action and also thanks to you LauraHale for keeping your eyes open for this problem editor. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For sock puppet mastery LauraHale (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He's back...after a few hours...caught him by my username stalker on IRC which has my username in it. Can we extend/lay another range? (I'm too tired to go looking at what has been layed) It is User:78.146.6.133 FYI. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The box and cartridge do say "Power Blade 2", but the game itself uses "Power Blade II". I'm not really sure which one to favor, though certainly the game will last longer than its physical form, and any available boxart is as reputable as any screenshot. Despatche (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amanda Knox. 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. -- samj _in^out 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of it, but I'm not sure why I'm getting this message now, especially given that I have commented on it about 3 times. –MuZemike 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My bad, first DRV and apparently I didn't follow the proper protocol. -- samj _in^out 13:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, it's just the deleting admin and those significant others involved in the previous AFDs (which I can't recall if I was or not; I don't remember so, however). Hope that helps :) –MuZemike 13:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I won't vandalise again. ★★★★ 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's appreciated. –MuZemike 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the WP:UNID socks (see ANI archive). A new sock is Special:Contributions/Wikipediancabal. I am going to revert their edits just after posting this. Thanks for your help. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you will notice, but here is another: Special:Contributions/Chalkboardchecker. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So, basically an SPI case that is in front of ArbCom. Great. Not that I disagree with anything you have said so far. –MuZemike 16:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On 9 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 10,000 metres, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Finland's Lasse Virén won the gold medal and set a world record in the 10,000 metres at the 1972 Summer Olympics, despite falling onto the track about halfway through the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 10,000 metres.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work on this article! Yet another little piece of athletic history covered... SFB 21:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See MnZemike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and deleted edits, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And another MuZemike 25 (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Both blocked, along with MuZemike 23 (talk · contribs) (yeah, very creative). Community ban also proposed at ANI. –MuZemike 23:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just created the above article, but I see that you deleted an earlier version of it a few months ago. Is there anything that should be incorporated? -- Theramin (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine. I can't think of anything right now, but let me know if anything comes up. –MuZemike 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but what I meant was "is there anything in the deleted version that should be added back?" -- Theramin (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything else in which already is included; also, most of other stuff in the deleted versions seem to be ripped off of other sources verbatim. –MuZemike 00:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the user nominating Knuckles' Chaotix for GAN. I find it odd as the account was made an hour ago and the article is at PR, with the nominator being blocked by you a few days ago. Can you check if he's a sock? GamerPro64 01:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked plus another one. I've re-blocked his range for a much longer time. –MuZemike 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this Brucejenner? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

He makes a coherent statement, though, and not the stupid banter the socks have done. –MuZemike 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that his first edit, ten minutes after registering, is to that page, however, especially given it's one of his usual spots. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the statement's a load of bull - there is no "personal life" section for Smiley, and the quotation does not appear in his article, at least not in the current revision. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

After a check of the article history, his statement did have some merit to it, however deprecated by the time someone noticed. I've reverted myself and apologized to him. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this being removed. Don't you think it needs to be restored? I'm going to put it back in Christian Roess (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Being that it's one of the main images associated with the movement, go ahead and restore it (unless there is a more suitable poster, but I don't think there is, yet, if I recall). –MuZemike 03:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The article I was talking about earlier was Joe Danger, if you want to give it a copyedit. Much appreciated, but not necessary by any means. Take care, — Joseph Fox 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I had WilliamH remove the protection from my userpage. Just as a matter of personal preference I like to leave it unprotected. I would rather a vandal waste his time (and warnings) attacking my user page than vandalizing legitimate articles. Thank you for the thought though! Trusilver 00:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. 144.132.85.58 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-05T01:33:39Z, expires 2012-04-05T01:33:39Z:
2. PersianMonkey3 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-06T00:40:40Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
3. Lovelybags (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-07T02:32:22Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Spam|Spam]] / [[WP:Advertising|advertising]]-only account
4. Gifthandbag (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-07T07:01:52Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Spam|Spam]] / [[WP:Advertising|advertising]]-only account
5. Barracudabarry (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-07T14:52:17Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
6. Magu Cinoix (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-10T04:49:12Z, expires infinity: [[User:Spotfixer]]
7. Seufs (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-11T08:09:46Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
8. Giivoh 283 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-11T20:44:18Z, expires infinity: [[User:Don't Feed the Zords]]
9. WhiteShirtLongJacket2 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-11T20:59:22Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]
10. MuZemike 23 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-11T22:40:00Z, expires infinity: [[User:Don't Feed the Zords]]
11. Smartian1 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-12T21:28:11Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: [[User:Millsstory]]
12. Haganah101 (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-12T21:28:19Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: [[User:Millsstory]]
13. MasadaForever (talk · block log · block user) by MuZemike at 2011-10-12T21:28:27Z, expires infinity: Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: [[User:Millsstory]]

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should have all been talk page revoked, either due to repeated talk page abuse in the past or, in the first couple of accounts listed above, spamming. –MuZemike 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Muzemike,

I've sent you email - have you received it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was checking out an editor's history, one I admit I am having some issues with. I am pretty sure he, CamoBeast (talk · contribs), is a the same person as Raptor Red (talk · contribs), that you have dealt with. Their style of writing, editing and the articles they edit are the same. Raptor Red was blocked and made his last edit on 2 April 2011. Camobeast began editing on 4 April 2011 and was obviously already an experienced editor. It's not quite a smoking gun, but I'd bet on it. Can you look into this, or advise who can? Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a block-evading sock of User:Raptor Red. –MuZemike 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The "wives" joke probably wasn't the best thing to do, and may even warrant revdeletion. I understand that it was intended solely as levity, but it won't do anything but inflame this case, as it is inspired by what is perceived as anti-LDS bias.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, six more (socks, that is):

• JosephSmiththeprophet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BookofMormon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DivineMandate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ItsTheEyeofthetiger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ProphetSeerRevelator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ProphetoftheRestoration (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Needless to say, he's making the Mormons look bad. –MuZemike 19:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the "wives" comment shouldn't have been writ. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am really pissed off about wasting time on Routerone - I did catch him using an IP sock but this is much worse than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Duke Groundrunner. It says the request is waiting on a response from you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He's a  Confirmed sock of an indefinitely blocked user (verified by both myself and Tnxman307), there is nothing much else to add. –MuZemike 05:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a few comments on the development section by our copy editor you may want to look at as I don't know whether you added them or have more info.∞陣内Jinnai 20:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike, I just wanted to make you aware of Simulation12's personal attack on you and two other users here: [18]. I reverted the edit, but I can't do anything else about it because I am not an administrator. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In the words of my favorite religious atheist: [19]. –MuZemike 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey MuZemike, I agree that an RfC for these Occupy is probably the best way to go. I hope you understand why I picked AfD (besides, of course, its popularity...): I foresaw disruption, in fighting over redirects and such. It hasn't evolved into edit-warring; some of my redirects were reverted, and some of those articles I've sent on to AfD rather than revert and pick a fight. Honestly, I hadn't thought about an RfC (never thought about them in terms of articles) and have no experience starting one; maybe I'll have to learn how to do that in the next couple of days. If you or other editors (any talk page stalkers?) are irritated by the presence of this discussion at ANI, please feel free to make that RfC happen; I have no objection. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was just throwing out a suggestion, more or less. I felt that an RfC would focus more on organizing the content in the "Occupy" articles, create more cohesion, and overall be more constructive than going directly to AfD with the lot of them. However, I see that the "lot of them" hasn't been nominated but only a few of them, so maybe there is a case-by-case basis on those cities that seem to have an article to advertise the movement, as a couple others have contended; to that extent I would support deletion as we are not a platform to promote a social movement (besides ours of course). –MuZemike 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, there. I suspect this might be a continuation of this. I've reverted it, but I'd almost lay money on the sequence of events from here on… —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected again; at this point, that's all we can do. –MuZemike 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello MuZemike. I just noticed that this user is a vandal, please do something: Mega Mom 2: MLBP????

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wetsoap
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.201.36.225
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.106.133.82
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.69.4.64

Look at his/her contributions. -.- ... I think it's the same person. --Hydao (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like another admin zapped Wetsoap. Keep an eye on the other articles (i.e. List of NES games and Works of fiction set in 2001, because the only option we will have if the disruption continues will be semi-protection. –MuZemike 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your checkuser work for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashleyleggat404, which I started. I am wondering whether I can act as the closing admin for the case, as everything that can be done seems to have been done, or whether it should be done by an uninvolved admin. Do you know what the accepted protocol is? I can't see anything about it anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that you did the block on Noppy (talk · contribs) (which I endorse, by the way), I don't see a problem with you closing it. –MuZemike 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no problem with you closing it, in fact it makes clerk life easier. As for being 'involved', that applies to admin actions, but usually an admin/clerk should have another person review before they take the next action. (e.g. I endorse, obviously a checkuser needs to look into it; I close, someone else looks at the archival; etc...) If you distance yourself with someone else looking between changing case states then your good. (That's IMO, not a policy) -- DQ (t) (e) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am looking at some accounts involved in hoax articles, and wondering whether it's worth raising an SPI, but I suspect they are stale. Could CU do anything useful with this spread of dates?

• account A edited 3 Jan 2011 - 20 Sep 2011
• account B edited only on 14 May 2011
• account C edited only on 24 July 2011
• IP edited 22 July 2011 - 15 Oct 2011

and two older ones:

• account E edited 18 Jun 2009 - 4 May 2010
• account F edited 20 Oct 2009 - 24 July 2010

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, about 90 days, so the older stuff wouldn't be able to be checked. –MuZemike 20:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I make 90 days ago 24 July, so not worth an SPI unless any of them spring to life when we start AfDing their hoaxes. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

216.6.232.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems clearly related to 68.62.240.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You didn't mark 68.62.240.86 as a proxy (which surprised me as an observer), but this new IP may give some insight as to how an editor from the UAE is editing through geographically diverse IPs.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The first IP looks like it is an open proxy and hence has been hardblocked. The second IP, however, doesn't seem like it is, given that is coming from a cable ISP. –MuZemike 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

He's a busy boy. Fiddle with the block on 98.98.237.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as appropriate.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

and 69.34.37.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, I was reading the main ArbCom election page for 2010 and I see that there are two different positions, "administrator" (which seems to be an "official", "selected" position) and "coordinator" (which seems to be a self-selected position.) I am wondering, is there a "job description" for the coordinator position? Is there a "lead coordinator", or do the coordinators work under the supervision of the administrators? Or what? I guess what I am asking in general is, is there a detailed description somewhere of how all this works and exactly who does what? (And just out of curiosity, I see you were a coordinator last year, but you seem to be steering the boat this time, are you going to be an administrator?) Thanks for the information. Neutron (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to post something on the RFC page shortly with regard to coordinators and election administrators. While we can discuss about the roles of coordinators (which virtually anyone in good standing can volunteer to help out), we will need several (it's been 3 in the past, normally) election administrators who are WMF-identified in which to grant access to the SecurePoll interface. Right now, we can take our time with regards to getting election administrators onboard until we get closer to the voting period or whenever User:Tim Starling asks for them, whichever comes first. –MuZemike 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on edits to Australia – New Zealand relations, I strongly suspect that HeteroUltima is the same editor as DavidYork71. That might combine two long-term abuse reports.-gadfium 04:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

He was on SuperblySpiffingPerson's IP range; now, it's possible that there might be a relation between the two, but given the quite blatant pro-Gaddafi bias in the disruptive page moves on Death of Muammar Gaddafi, it seemed like an easy call to make that this was SSP. In any case, we both agree that this is a sock of someone. –MuZemike 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You might like to keep an eye on User:Transglobular. -gadfium 05:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article in question wasn't created by this particular group(?) of user(s?), just heavily edited by two of them (the other two being throwaways for the AfD). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

These accounts look like sockpuppets of User:AtlanticDeep - contributions include hoaxes, nonsense edits to date pages and current events, and addition of incorrect information to the same school articles. Peter E. James (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much experience on him to tell you, though. Anyone one else here with any knowledge? –MuZemike 20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticed you were the blocking admin. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marburg72/Archive this guy has returned, again, as 71.81.36.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [20], [21], [22]. If he buggers off and leaves me alone, I don't guess it matters, but thats what I thought before he posted the 3rd diff. Thoughts? Heiro 03:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

CONSTANT HARASSMENT HEIRONYMOUNS ROWE COPIED MY WEBSITE ON THIER PERSONAL WIKIPEDIA PAGE WITHOUT PERMISSION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I struck out the unfound accusation by the IP. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably time. I'd been leaving them as targets because it was fairly effective at exposing zombies.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. I'll remember WP:OVERSIGHT next time. I think I will promptly trout myself... WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems. We shouldn't be broadcasting stuff like that on WP:ANI, as those edits were clearly oversightable. –MuZemike 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe an oversight of my request for oversight is in order here? WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The edits in question have already been oversighted, so I don't think that's necessary. –MuZemike 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request oversight of his request to oversight his request for oversight. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Phelan you closed with no consensus. Were you persuaded that any or all of the keep votes applied the WP:N criteria correctly to this biographical article -- or does that not factor into the decision? patsw (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to look more at the arguments put forth (which is what we're supposed to do), and I made my brief assessment of those arguments in my closing rationale. It seemed like both sides were fairly intrenched in the "sources establish notability" versus "sources do not establish notability" camps; there was no consensus in either direction. –MuZemike 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For stepping in with the range block. What brought the issue to your attention? If you had come across User_talk:166.147.112.7#Cross-IP-range_vandalism, you would have noticed that we've been trying to figure out how best to address the issue, but a range block now is probably prudent. Thanks again. —Eustress ^talk 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be a little more effective than blocking individual IPs. Also remember not to indef them in the future; make it a set length. –MuZemike 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks —Eustress ^talk 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw you revert a number of individual blocks because a range block is now in place. I just wanted to confirm with you what the range block was, exactly, and/or where I can find info on it. Eustress, who had been thus far handling the individual bans, referred me to you for more info. :) Salvidrim (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See the above thread. –MuZemike 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I saw it just after posting. I am unfamiliar with how range blocks work, is there a documentation page, and/or what range exactly does this block cover? Salvidrim (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See mw:Help:Range blocks on the MediaWiki wiki for more information. –MuZemike 00:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

69.121.32.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is borderline. I started to block/revert, and then decided I was uncertain. Last edit was to restore a Brexx edit, but not everyone that does that is actually Brexx.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, at this point, the IPs are all over the place, so there is no certainty from looking at IPs alone. If you think it's not him, then don't block. –MuZemike 01:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It has gotten pretty insane. I was hoping there was some user agent information that could give a clue, but I'll have to give this one the benefit of the doubt.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy again, again. This certainly appears to quack like this particular duck, and it seems I'm not the only one to notice. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock blocked, Masturbation and Non-penetrative sex are now full-protected for 1 month each. –MuZemike 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm Henery the Eighth, I am, Henery the Eighth I am, I am! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect we'll probably see more of this within an hour of the 72-hour block's expiry. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 21:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are kindly requested to give your opinion on an issue that has arisen on Talk:List of Silent Hill characters, concerning a major restructuring of the article, in order to raise consensus (see the bottom of the page). Hula Hup (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's not FOJ-related, is it? –MuZemike 22:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Hula Hup (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in here. Because it's the first time I've come across something like this since getting the mop I wasn't sure if I should revdel . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say those remarks were just enough to merit WP:RD2. Just remember that we don't indef IPs; you need to set a length for those blocks as people move and IPs get reassigned elsewhere. –MuZemike 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The remaining RFC's have been closed and I left a brief summary at the top of the page. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011.--v/r - TP 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to contact you in regard to the page for 411mania, which you sent to User:Dream Focus in the form of Userfication in May of 2010. It appears as if there has been no work on it since then; I recently created a subpage under my own namespace to do my own userfication User:CWSensation/411mania. It would appear as if the next step would be a deletion review, but I don't know if I can/should post my own userfication as a review since there is the original userfiction page with Dream Focus or if there was another step that needed to be taken, so as the administrator involved, I figured I would ask you. Thanks! CWSensation^t 10:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, apologies for the delay in response, as I have been rather busy IRL as of late. A quick look at the sources: The Gawker or Bleacher Report sources don't even look like it mentions 411mania at all, the MTV source merely mentions it in a very small context (nothing significant) with regards to Inception and National Treasure, while the others are either primary sources (which, as you know, cannot contribute towards notability) or they mention the profiles of the authors of the site and mention very little about the site itself aside that they are editors for it. (A couple don't even mention the site at all, such as Shawn S. Lealos' Yahoo! profile or Scott Keith's list of published books on Amazon.)

In my opinion, it doesn't look like the current sources given there establish sufficient notability, yet. However, I do note that the Boston.com source (which should be a reliable source in my view) is a step in the right direction. You could request a deletion review on the status of the userfied page, but I don't know how far you would get in the article's current state; it may be better to see if you can find some better reliable sources that talk about 411mania itself and then see if the article is good enough. That's my assessment so far. –MuZemike 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! Yeah, I know the primary sources wouldn't work, they're in there just for sourcing and not to help supply notability. The Bleacher Report source is there because 411mania was the original source for that particular news post, which is cited in a link within the article. The Gawker one has a source similar to MTV (which were both in there just as "filling out" sources...I figure always better to oversource than undersource). One quick question, as sometimes what is an exact establishment of notability is a bit fuzzy...would the index at GameRankings (Reference 7) apply for notability as an aggregate site for Game reviews? I'm unclear as to whether sites like that, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes or the link are considered good sources for establishing notability. Thank you again for your input! CWSensation^t 01:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hullo Mike, just doing a spot of due diligence and wondering if you were thinking of continuing coordinating ACE2011? I've set up WP:COORD11 and talk, but won't be around in six hours to announce the opening of nominations, so I asked User:Monty845 to take a run at it, but if you were about also as a failsafe that would be splendid. Cheers, Skomorokh 18:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do it if he can't. We also need to make sure the announcements get promptly posted. –MuZemike 19:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to notify *every* noticeboard of the elections... especially when there is already a message on the interface (above the watchlist). Just saying... Horologium (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We want to make sure everybody knows, so that nobody comes with guns blazing and saying 'Well, I didn't know anything about any election!' –MuZemike 00:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Be careful when changing the categories for pages associated with the Miami Marlins. If a person played/coached/managed for the team when it was called the Florida Marlins, that person needs to remain in the Florida Marlins category/categories (although if they're still with the team, they will need to be in both categories. I'm working on fixing some of these now. -Dewelar (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So, we separate categorically everything by the franchise's name as opposed to the franchise in general? To me, that doesn't make sense. –MuZemike 07:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That is, I'm trying to keep the mentions of "Florida Marlins" in the articles based upon the context, while I am changing everything in the categories, because it makes no sense to have two separate categories for the same franchise, as it would make things harder to search. Or am I wrong on this? –MuZemike 07:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. For whatever reason, WP:BASEBALL has decided that when a team changes its name, it uses all new categories for players/coaches/managers/what have you. Thus, there are separate categories for Category:Los Angeles Dodgers managers and Category:Brooklyn Dodgers managers (not to mention Category:Brooklyn Bridegrooms managers, Category:Brooklyn Robins managers, and several others). Whether this is sensible or not is up for debate, but that would appear to be how they're handled. They should all be listed as subcategories of the LA parent category, but it doesn't appear that they are (or at least not consistently). -Dewelar (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your actions in dealing with the User:Peter Wynne-Thomas issue at both ANI and SPI. I notice that one of the six accounts you blocked had created the above article which you have speedy deleted because of WP:BLP. As the article is almost certainly about me personally, could you possibly enlighten me re its content? If so and you would prefer to use e-mail, please let me know so that I can enable the e-mail. Thanks again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware of that, I went with what existed already. Thanks for cleaning-up after me, I'll finish checking them all tommorow. :) Salvidrim! (t • c) 05:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've been going through about 25 of them from WP:VG (which also doesn't use Redirect-Class) that have been tagged as such. –MuZemike 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Have left a question for you in here Tintin 08:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent you a mail. Please ignore my post for now. Tintin 10:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done on a difficult block, you pawn of the global new world eugenics order. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when I become a pawn of any other movement or new world order that I may not be aware of. –MuZemike 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ew, that's a rather nasty blog post about you here. Some people.... --Salvidrim! (t • c) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

...and just days before the 20th anniversary of Freddie Mercury's death, as well (November 24, 1991). And his lifestyle could not have possibly caused him to have AIDS, now, could it? </sarcasm> –MuZemike 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#IP abuse. Since the ranges are only small (/24 and /23), I think those IPs could get a rangeblock, in my opinion. Since you are good at those, you're invited to comment there. (Note: I'm involved as one of the editors who rolled back the vandalism of those IPs).Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dane97/Archive, both users have been confirmed to be sockpuppets of Dane97. Therefore, Ryan Lavery and Gillian Andrassy and Stone Cates and Robin Scorpio should be speedily deleted under WP:G5. However, both articles have been tagged for speedy deletion for almost half a day, and who else have an authority to delete articles if you are not the one? --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to reply. Other administrators have done the deleting volunteering work. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there. This AfD discussion, live for 11 days now, is degrading into accusations (which may or may not have merit) and rebuttals (which may or may not be productive). If you do not have an interest in the article under discussion, might you consider nudging it along in whatever direction seems appropriate? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the AfD has reached the appropriate conclusion despite the smoke generated from it. –MuZemike 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting my talk page from that Yourname sock. 1966batfan (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This, [23] shouldn't have been deleted. Please undelete it and state better reasons. it was sourced, it was referenced and it was relisted twice because there was nothing wrong with it. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my AFD close. Multiple users (including after the relist) have asserted that the sources provided and from searches have done failed to establish notability; I think the problem was how it was referenced/sourced. –MuZemike 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Monet Stunson. 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. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On 11/16 you deleted the page for Game Industry News. We are currently trying to get enough references together to increase it's notability. However, there were changes made to the page once it went live. Could you please make a copy of the page as it was at the time of deletion onto my workspace? Thank you.

Also, since I had supplied external references are requested in the delete request in September, I didn't think not logging in for a month would pose a danger to our page. Apparently I was wrong. I feel this discussion should have lasted longer than 2 weeks simply to allow people who might not log in regularly to respond. Thank you.Gregcrowe (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly can. I have provided a draft copy at User:Gregcrowe/Game Industry News so that you are able to work on the article in the meantime. –MuZemike 17:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, since you are the expert when it comes to rangeblocks, could you take a look at this ANI thread and see what you can do. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On 20.11. you have deleted an article about Francis Tapon that I wrote. It was suggested for deletion on 12.11. by Tinton5. I was just about to enter my complaint on the proposed deletion of the article decision now that I returned from the Field trip only to realize I was too late. Was away for some time and thus couldn't react in time. Francis Tapon whom I wrote about didn't look notable because someone removed half of his accomplishments and also removed his second book (ISBN-13: 978-0976581222) prior to the actual decision to pull the article down. Tapon was the first to do a round-trip on the Continental Divide Trail, a 5,600 mile, 7-month trip that was covered on the SF Chronicle, Backpacker Magazine, New Mexico Magazine, and National Geographic. How is that not a notable athletic accomplishment? He was a finalist in the California Outdoors Hall of Fame. His 2nd book is 750 pages of excellent Eastern Europeans research. Why not include it since it's already out as an ebook and the hardcover comes out Dec 15, 2011? All that being said I believe the article must be restored in it's original state because it complies with Wikipedia rules. If you don't comply with my request then I suggest the deletion of all athletes that fall in the equal or less prominent category. An example of an athlete who is by all standards less prominent then Francis Tapon would be Ben Saunders (explorer). Note that I have nothing against that athlete - I'm just trying to make a point here!

All the best,

Mister.Hister (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody objected to the deletion in the deletion discussion, and you didn't even raise your concerns there at all. What I can do right now is restore it as a userspace draft if you have sources that can possibly show notability. –MuZemike 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said I was away for some time. Seen the notice for article deletion one day before it got deleted but that day I couldn't enter my concern. When I came back home the next day as I was to enter my objection it was already too late. I understand your action was perfectly in compliance with the wiki protocol though. The article itself was robbed of some critical data needed by wiki standards prior to that and that is what set me off. Please do restore it as userspace draft. I'll then make sure all the neccessary data is back again.

Thank you!

Mister.Hister (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I was going to place it under User:Mister.Hister/Francis Tapon so that you can keep your userpage free for other stuff. –MuZemike 14:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! One more question. I was searching and couldn't find any notification that the article I created was modified by someone although I have it set under surveillance. I also don't see any change noted in the article changes log. What am I missing here?Mister.Hister (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You deleted this on 11 November 2011 - 2011_Power_Snooker_Masters_Trophy. Can you reinstate as it relates to a real event and I wish to update results.194.176.105.150 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I keep looking the article over and over, and can't think of what else to do before going for FAC. I'm still not 100% statisfied with the "Reception" section, but no solutions come to mind. Do you think the article is ready for FAC? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Aside from grammar and other formatting issues (could use another good scour of grammar/MoS in my opinion), I can't think of much else that needs to be worked on before going to FAC. I just want to make sure that a good product is sent to FAC so it doesn't get ousted quickly. –MuZemike 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we get someone else to take a look at the article? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

I would do one more copyedit request or general peer review; how effective they will be, I don't know, but it will likely get stuff that we won't get since we have looked at the article a lot more (i.e. achieving "strategic distance", as said in User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Attaining "strategic distance"). –MuZemike 06:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was a good honeypot for catching Grundle in the act of being Grundle. I know it has been "repeatedly recreated", but it's recreation is useful in helping stop a disruptive force at Wikipedia. Any thoughts to reconsidering your salting thereof? --Jayron32 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only been recreated twice at that page, though I think there were a couple other times somewhere else, also. I think the likelihood of him busting autoconfirmed to edit Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez is more likely then his persistent recreations of that article (not to mention not many people would prefer Obama's or Chavez's articles full-protected anyways). –MuZemike 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is LOTS of people don't like Obama or Chavez, and edit those articles with a political axe to grind, as Grundle does. The Michelle Obama Arms thing is uniquely him. --Jayron32 03:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an unblock request at User talk:Kieran Ireland. You blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts", but the user denies this. This was based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/More package?/Archive, evidently using checkuser evidence. The user says that the editing is from a school. If that is true then it seems to me that the claim not to be the same user is entirely plausible. Perhaps you can check it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot definitively conclude that it's from a school IP (the blocked IP is from a broadband ISP), but it could possibly be from looking at the edits from the blocked accounts. However, if that is the case, then that school has succeeded in getting much of its student body to disrupt Wikipedia, either by creating blatant hoax articles or outright vandalizing. –MuZemike 15:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. This account's edit, unlike those of most of the accounts in that SPI, is neither obviously vandalism nor on any of the favourite topics of those sock/meatpuppets (e.g. earthquakes). I have decided on a WP:ROPE/WP:AGF unblock, and will keep an eye on the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who was User:DarknessVisitor a sock of or socking as? I can't find any reports. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He is  Confirmed as EvilChance (talk · contribs) and FuckBananaFingers (talk · contribs); the sockmaster has been given a 1 week block for abusive sock puppetry. –MuZemike 20:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you very much! Nataev (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(Originally posted over on User_talk:28bytes but he suggested you might be a better person to talk to.)

Hi, I'm looking for advice about whether revision deletion would be helpful/available in dealing with this long-term abuser. I'm the editor who created her LTA page; I've logged out to post this because she stalks my contributions, and for obvious reasons I'd rather not alert her to this discussion just yet, so I'll follow discussion here.

In brief, she's obsessed with Ronald Ryan and 'fixing' his article to assert his innocence. In pursuit of this she's been using sock puppets, open proxies, lying about sources, legal threats, etc etc. She's been hammering away at the article for five years now; depending on what's semi-ed at the time, she'll spill over onto its talk page, or related articles like Wrongful execution, or talk pages for myself and for admins who've blocked her or semi-ed the page. It starts out as POV-pushing but tends to end up as abuse and harassment - loony stuff like this attack on me, or this attack on a man who's been dead almost fifty years. She's even taken to following my contributions to totally unrelated pages and attacking those.

She invariably gets reverted and her proxies get blocked, but she keeps coming back - between the harassment of me and the disruption she's causing at Ronald Ryan etc, it gets a bit tiresome. It seems part of the reason she persists is the awareness that even when reverted, her edits will still show up in article histories - see comments like "Remember this.... deletion of contents remains permanent on history records for all to read" and "Read more in history records. Wiki dont want any one to know". I think her activity could be considered as "purely disruptive material", and I wonder whether redaction could be considered as a way to discourage her, since it would deny her the ability to use article history sections as a soapbox. But I'm aware RD is something that needs to be used sparingly. Thoughts?

Also happy to take other suggestions for how to deal with this. --114.77.43.10 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and RevDeleted two of the recent IP edits there; both were clearly grossly offensive and used for attacking others. I concur with the re-protection of the article, and that was the most appropriate thing to do here, as this person seems to IP-hop all over the place. –MuZemike 18:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I seem to spend most of my Wiki time these days on AIV, requests for protection, and reporting her proxies as they pop up - unfortunately, when Ronald Ryan is protected, she'll target just about anything in my edit history while waiting for protection to expire. She seems to have a LOT of time on her hands. --114.77.43.10 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Under IP 66.153.221.194, has added VC release info to Mario Party 3 and other TV-based videogames. Previously blocked at User talk:MuZemike/Archive 9#166.147.xxx.xx range block. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what enjoyment vandals like this one can dervie from this... :( --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say, I blocked the IP and semi-protected Mario Party 3 for 3 months as a result. This person is really starting to become a persistent nagger. –MuZemike 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I was wondering if you could take a look at this SPI. It has been sitting there for a couple days and I kinda need the information from it in regards to an ongoing MFD discussion where both have responded. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Just lighting this up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, was the IP a sock or just a DUCK block? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DUCK block, as I find it hard to ascertain any differently from the editing patterns made. –MuZemike 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, just wanted to clarify. :) Thanks for taking a look at that SPI. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See this SPI case, where the IP has even admitted to ban evasion. Just thought I'd keep you in the loop. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And again... thanks. I hope you don't mind me notifiying you directly, if you'd rather I stick to the "official" channels, lemme know. :) --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 16:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a message for you over at User talk:78.148.81.208 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

... and another one from the same user at User talk:78.148.81.107. I don't know whether the comments there will lead you to change anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo unilaterally unblocks Brexx.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Jimbo to unban and unblock User:Vote (X) for Change, as well. Failing that, I will carry that out myself. –MuZemike 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the pointy sticks out of our toolchests. I'm sure that Brexx will revert to his old habits within a week, and the indefinite block will be immediately reinstated. Just pisses me off that the hours of effort I've put in on this case were ignored.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone else pointed out, if/when Brexx goes off the rails again, it's really Jimbo's responsibility at this point. So is he going to re-block? Or - more accurately - has he already pressed the button and walked away from the whole matter? - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So apparently Jimbo reinstated the ban. Maybe it should've went to WP:ANI to restart the entire process from several years ago. Besides, we're supposed to WP:AGF, right? Give me a freaking break, here. –MuZemike 12:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, MuZemike. I'm not quite sure what's the best way to handle this. It feels to me as though the one editor is bound and determined to bull, bully, bludgeon, revert, shout, and steamroller his way around any attempt at discussion and consensus-building. Particulars and diffs are at the link. I feel like I've tried to engage this editor in productive discussion while objecting in a civil manner and without personal attacks to what looks like pretty questionable behaviour on his part. I'm growing exasperated, though. Obviously I can step back and disengage from a conversation attempt that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, but I do feel this editor's behaviour warrants some scrutiny and possibly some corrective counsel. AN/I…? Your thoughts are welcome, if you care to share them. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ne'er mind. Threats by Tartenator have led me to file at AN/I. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike. You struck two IP votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination), which is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 29#SuperKombat. Did you check The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk · contribs) and Temporary for Bonaparte (talk · contribs), two single-purpose accounts, to see if they are socks? Cunard (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on that for privacy reasons; users are free to make connections themselves, but I cannot publicly link IPs to individual accounts, especially when I did not have to. –MuZemike 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask about the IPs. I asked about whether the two accounts are connected. Judging by your comment, they are not. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for that - you know what I mean. :) HurricaneFan25 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Whatever it was, it was so good you got two barnstars. Congrats. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a glitch, I guess. Sorta like LauraHale's WikiLove messages ;). :P HurricaneFan25 18:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete the cats + userpages (you know what I mean)? They're being used as trophies. HurricaneFan25 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Theserialcomma is back again with another sleeper, this time User:Max725power. Exact same sort of stuff [24] he has been doing for years with various accounts and IPs. He is changing the wording again, but his tells are the same. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The account has been around before TSC, though. I have some doubts that this is him. –MuZemike 14:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubts that it is him. User:Theserialcomma was not his first account either (I don't really want to list all his known accounts here), but User:Theserialcomma was probably one of the accounts he used the longest. Given the edit patterns of the other accounts I've see him pop up with (like with User:Max725power now), I'm starting to think he may now (post-User:Theserialcomma) be picking up old/abandoned accounts with weak passwords. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there MuZemike, just want to let you know that this article had already been PROD'ed before by me, and so I've removed yours and taken it to AfD. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember him? It looks like he's "block evading" again. Please see this conversation, and help if you see fit. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.71.49.191&oldid=464272378 Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this SPI case, in response to which you had issues a rangeblock (expiring tonight, I think, but still in effect at the time of the above events). The rangeblock (and the individual blocks) also restricted Talk page use. Salvidrim! 21:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've solved all the issues I have been able to find in Lockdown. I have responded to the remaining issues. Would you mind returning to the review as there is some issues that need some clarification is order to solve?--WillC 14:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, hopefully later this afternoon I'll take another look. –MuZemike 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I look forward to it.--WillC 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for passing the article. Much appreciated for it and the review.--WillC 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, Mike. I'm hoping you can help me out. On September 17, 2011, you deleted Mark the Match Boy,[25] indicating that it was created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Today, I received a message from User talk:Theclevertwit,[26] deriding me for placing an WP:OR tag on his page for the Mark the Match Boy article. Honestly, I don't remember this article or the interaction with this user at all. It looks like User talk:Theclevertwit may be an additional sock of the original. Would you mind taking a look at this a bit closer? Do you recall this article, deletion, or user? Any idea who the puppetmaster would be, if any? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

He made a couple minor edits to article before it was deleted (even the banned user in question called the user out on the OR). Right now, it seems like merely a comment made before the article was deleted; why that user remains to dwell on it is beyond me. In other words, that's not a sock of the banned user in question. –MuZemike 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Much appreciated! Best regards, Cind.amuse 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

hey its ex editor thejadefalcon here, have a new account.--Thenewjadefalcon (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? –MuZemike 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not. A. Chance. Doughnuthead, which you very clearly are, just because I haven't logged in for over a year doesn't mean I'm not around and it definitely doesn't mean I forgot my password. What exactly is your issue with me, precisely, anyway? It's more confusing than irritating. Anyway, thanks for alerting me to this, MuZemike. Honestly a little surprised anyone remembers me. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, do you think this article should exist? I mean... uh? --Hydao (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Janitor Man is a Super Nintendo Entertainment System puzzle game that never existed. It was never featured on Nintendo Power because it did not really exist. → You're right, prodded. Sadly, I've seen more elaborate hoaxes like this before. –MuZemike 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean... yeah, I don't know what to say. Speechless. --Hydao (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I am having some trouble with a user and could use some help if you have the time. User:Unscintillating‎, who is engaged in the WCKS (college radio) AfD is disrupting the WCKS (college radio)‎ page by removing the {{dubious}} tags after previous warnings. I have issued a Warn4 warning for "removal of content" (though it is kinda vague), but since I am involved in the AfD and was the user that issued the previous warnings, it is best that I hand this off to an admin.

Some backstory on the article and the AfD. WCKS (college radio)‎ is an unlicensed college radio station in Michigan. User:Unscintillating‎ is adding sources that reference an FCC application, but after extensive searching in the bowels and recesses of the FCC website (where they get rid of nothing), I have come up empty on finding this application, hence the dubious tags. Without a backing FCC application, the sources don't back up the information. You can find my research on the AfD page. But User:Unscintillating‎ continues to remove the dubious tags, even though a dicussion is open (and not finished) on Talk:WCKS (college radio)‎ under the header "Dubious". The article was put up for deletion by User:Edison for essentially not meeting GNG and our media (radio/TV) notability guidelines on December 2.

Again, being involved in the talk page discussion and the AfD and having issued the previous warnings, I find it best to hand off to an admin...again, if you have time. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to raise a new SPI on the IPs being used by Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs) -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar/Archive or if you can raise a range block without it. See for instance where he's used several IP addresses. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar is a persistent problem... he is still removing citations from articles, introducing poorly-Englished paraphrases, and adding page-views from Google books that do not support his statements. All with few or no edit summaries and zero communication with other users. He's created at least one sock, WinnerWinner2468 (talk · contribs) and reinstates past edits from a series of IPs, including 182.182.84.119 (talk · contribs), 182.182.54.130 (talk · contribs), 182.182.114.195 (talk · contribs), 182.182.80.42 (talk · contribs), and 182.182.109.105 (talk · contribs). There's a strong correlation between the edits of these IP and Moghal Lohar, and their style is nearly identical. Thanks for taking a look. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 182.182.0.0/17 for 1 week, but I really cannot block any longer for fear of collateral damage. For all intents and purposes, I'm presuming that WinnerWinner2468 is the sockmaster, who has been blocked for 1 year? That's about all I can do at the moment. –MuZemike 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I hope it will at least slow him down. The Mughal Lohar account is the earlier one, so I'd say he would be the master. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

New developments, see my talk page and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sridhar100. We have an addict here. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revoked, and I have blocked another IP range. –MuZemike 08:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, do you edit the filters or just turn them on or off? I ask because I need an edit filter tweaked as the vandal it was made to keep out has gotten around it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please email me with the details, and I'll look into it. –MuZemike 22:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

One email headed your way. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you have a look at Brandonfarris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Garth M (talk · contribs) and edits to James Campbell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Herald Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others - Brandonfarris has posted to WP:RPP about one of the them. Mtking ^(edits) 09:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Brandonfarris and Garth M have been blocked 24 hours for edit warring and disruption on multiple articles. If they continue, let me know, and I or another admin will issue longer blocks. –MuZemike 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the The Age hacking scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been straight reverted from the edits by Mtking (talk · contribs) into its edit warred state by Brandonfarris (talk · contribs). I suspect the edit war is likely to continue on this basis. There appear to be numerous breaches of NPOV and Good Faith in the editing surrounding this article. DrDoogle (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You blocked this account as a sock, without indicating in your block message who the sockmaster was, but on the user page you indicated it was Rjeng2000 (talk · contribs), an account which has two other blocked socks.

One declined unblock request has been posted, which notes that Rjeng2000 has never been blocked. The current unblock request says that it was Greendeer (talk · contribs) who was blocked, which was created by friends of the user and did vandalize.

Greendeer and B-Boy have no apparent editing topics in common. I think it is possible that they may indeed have been separately created accounts. And why, if Rjeng2000 has created three sock accounts which have all been indefblocked, has that account itself never been blocked?\

This is a strange situation, and I am hoping you can shed some light on this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks re Geoffreyp7, who I've unblocked. I had forgotten. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think B-Boy is having a hard time keeping his story straight; first, he claims that the abusive sock was the result of his friends, but now he's saying it's his brother. There is also the fact that Rjeng2000 has refused to answer my question about two other socks. –MuZemike 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not looking good, then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MuZemike! I would like to improve Betrayal at Krondor and people (namely JimmyBlackwing) tell me that you have Retro Gamer Issue 84, which contains material on the game's development. Can you mail me the issue? Electroguv (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Heyas, might I suggest an article that I created (shameless promotion) that might help with any "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" posts you might have received. It's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can volunteer to work on this if you want to merge or userfy to me. Can't promise a timeline though. Beyond495 (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done see User:Beyond495/Carl's Stone Cold Lock of the Century of the Week. –MuZemike 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I discovered HardCoreFactz III (talk · contribs) editing The Biggest Loser article and warned them for their edit, then I discovered that you blocked HardCoreFactz II (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts, so I think you might want to do the same here, and look out for HardCoreFactz IV (talk · contribs) :p — Moe ε 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, is User:Orangemike you too? I noticed him giving the block to HardCoreFactz III, then you blocking subsequent sockpuppets of him. — Moe ε 16:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not. He's a Milwaukeean, while I am a lowly flatlander. –MuZemike 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm discussing a character list at Talk:Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars and the Super Smash Bros. compromise came up. For the life of me I can't find the original archived discussion that led to the current state of those articles, do you know where it is? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps this discussion is what you,re looking for? Salvidrim! 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that one (and wished I knew about when it was going on), but I'm thinking of something that is much older and probably archived somewhere. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

• Hr333H (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? The userpage seems familiar to me for some longterm vandal, and the naming seems to fit. I was going to add it to the Crouch Swale SPI, but was worried that I'd screw up the auto archiving if I reopened it. Thx! Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to add it; I got it. It was on a different IP. –MuZemike 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if User:Reimei, User:RealReimei, User:Conkerd64, User:XxDouLeexX, User:Grim94, and User:Unlikekillerpl all happen to just be one person playing games with us. I indefblocked RealReimei for impersonating Reimei, and Reimei ended up caught in the autoblock. I looked closer, and found that all of the above users seem to spend an inordinate amount of time just playing on each others' userpages, so I became suspicious of silly socking. Furthermore, the few article edits are all to Camp Half-Blood or PlayStation-related articles, so I began to wonder if they are reincarnations of User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, who also enjoyed playing silly games with admins. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I initially was the one who found RealReimei posting on Reimei's talk page, and reported him to UAA for a misleading username. Later, Reimei came to my talk page and advised me that it was a friend of his pulling a prank. Whether or not that's true, I don't know. As for the possibility of him being a sock of Perseus, Son of Zeus, I wouldn't know, but I personally wouldn't rule it out. Calabe1992 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the possibility that they are Perseus, Son of Zeus looks really unlikely; he hasn't edited since February. HurricaneFan25 — 20:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can say right now that all of these edits are coming from a school. Hence, it's possible that many students are simply horsing around on Wikipedia during school hours. I'm inclined to hardblock the school's IP from what I see, so that they are forced to edit from home; that includes revoking Reimei's IP block exemption. Thoughts? –MuZemike 21:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as no helpful edits are coming from the IP or any account associated with it, I don't see a problem there. Calabe1992 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the IP block exemption. I always intended it to be temporary, and the comments above have prompted me to remove it about 4 hours earlier than I was planning to. In fact, the account made no edits during the period when it was IP block exempt, so the exemption had no effect at all. I would be perfectly happy with a hardblock on the school's IP. In practice the vast majority of editing from schools is kids playing around, and if any of them does want to make constructive edits, then restricting them to doing so at home is not a big deal, while it may well have a significant effect on stopping or reducing the "horsing around". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with hardblocking the IP and seeing if the clowning around continues from a single home IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Yet another reason to support a hardblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• The autoblock has now expired. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what happens; school is just underway. –MuZemike 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As I was just reminded, this user's unblock request is still on hold and it's been four days. James is right; we need to resolve it. What's your preference? Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Having made the block on them myself (with another admin making the block on User:Rjeng2000), I personally suspect good hand, bad hand socking; I have a hard time believing that a brother used two accounts, and then another friend came over and created another account on their computer solely to vandalize. If you disagree, then WP:AN will need to be used to gauge a consensus. –MuZemike 21:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts. "Good hand, bad hand socking" is certainly likely, and I am always highly suspicious of "little brother" defences. In such cases I have found from experience that I tend to be more willing than many admins to give another chance, largely on the WP:ROPE principal. If this is one of the rare cases of a genuine little brother, then unblocking is clearly right, while if it isn't then we get one of two things: either a return to disruptive editing with a rapid reblock, or else an editor who was doing the good/bad hand thing but who has been frightened off by the block and now edits constructively. That means that there is a chance of getting a long term good result, offset by a chance of getting a bad result very briefly, because of the quick reblock. That is why I tend to go for the second chance option, not because I am totally convinced by the genuine little brother explanation. There is also the fact that B-Boy 369 user admits that A-Boy 265 is another one of his/her accounts. If they were a user of various sockpuppets then they might be more likely to deny them all. I accept that is far from certain, as an intelligent sockpuppeteer might realise that the similarity of usernames was a give away, so that denying that one was pointless. However, it still does, I think, slightly add to the case for an unblock. Having said all that, I will also say that I don't feel so strongly about it that I will object if the decision goes the other way, and also that very often, in my experience, it makes no difference what is done to an unblock request that has been left this long, as the editor has given up and never comes back even if they are unblocked, or else by now they have ditched the account and created a new sock account to use. I think the main thing at this stage is to settle the matter one way or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I have unblocked both accounts. I will not deal with this situation again. –MuZemike 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Concerning the proposed deletions for the various NES game series, I suppose I got carried away. Please don't take it too harshly. I suppose such pages would be more appropriate on, say, the Nintendo Wiki.

AmericanLeMans (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No shame intended. There's just nothing substantive that can be written in those three articles. –MuZemike 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Compare these edits I reverted (and what he stated in the edit summary) to this edit and its edit summary. The user went to the Masturbation article and then the Non-penetrative sex article, just like the other sockpuppets and I'm certain that it will not stop with these few new edits. The editor will soon start reverting and declaring that he is right without anything backing him up. Looks like this account was a sleeper. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw, fer crumb's sake. That guy needs a (better) hobby. Until administrative action is taken I'll keep a close(r) eye on the article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks, Scheinwerfermann. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, do you mind weighing in at User talk:Scheinwerfermann#Non-penetrative sex article and letting us know what you think should be done? Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I made a brief additional comment at Scheinwerfermann's, in case you aren't watching that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Chaosname is back in form of User:Sociald43. Närking (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Närking (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you can do anything, but Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs) has returned again, editing from his usual IP range. See 182.182.20.163 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

182.182.0.0/17 is now blocked for 2 weeks. –MuZemike 01:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail to unblock states that IP is part of Hughes satellite, which may mean that they are forcing through a proxy type service. Not sure whether that would affect how you have placed and described the block. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That was something in which I didn't check, but the rangeblock for (IP) vandalism is rather clear and self-explanatory. –MuZemike 01:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thanks for the comment on my talk page. Per the comments on Bwilkins talk and here on ANI, can you run a CU? It looks like a pretty obvious sock of someone I've had administrative interactions with lately - I'd bet BarnstarBob. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoever he is, he's going a good job in keeping his identity secret. –MuZemike 01:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas: Explaining the implications of restoring the talk page, that the userfied copy will come back, and he can use those versions to spam

Previously, I requested here on this talk page that you restore the discussion on GalingPinas's talk page. You removed my comment and said you would respond on ANI. In fact, your response on ANI avoids addressing my request and instead changes the subject. Is there a good reason you cannot restore my comments and his response to the talk page? Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to frag the entire discussion so that nobody can find it, that's your loss. I deleted those versions because GalingPinas copypasted the entire deleted article onto his talk page. Given his propensity to spam that all over the place, I selectively deleted them. I wasn't aware that there was conversation regarding the block. If I restore all that, then I a copy of the deleted article will also be restored.

I wasn't trying to dodge anything or changing the question; I have made the same response here as I would have at ANI. –MuZemike 23:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm at a loss understanding your comments. To recap, you said you didn't remove any talk page discussion, however, you did remove talk page discussion, in particular an exchange I had with the user where I offered my help and we discussed him taking a break and asking for forgiveness. Right as we were starting to make progress, the user's talk page access was revoked so that he could no longer reply, and the discussion was deleted from the page history. During a subsequent discussion on ANI, I asked why the talk page moments were deleted, and you said they weren't. I then contacted you and asked you to restore them, at which point, you deleted my request and said you were taking it back to ANI, whereupon you changed the subject, avoided my request for a second time, and indirectly accused me of trying to restore disputed content. I then came back here and asked you to restore the discussion again. In reply, you've said you can't without restoring disputed content, however the discussion in question is not linked to that content. It seems like you've deliberately avoided answering a simple question for some unknown reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the timing, from how I see it: [27] → First, you attempted to talk with GalingPinas. Then, 20 minutes later, OverlordQ revoked his talk page. About 90 minutes after that, I made the deletion, assuming everything was all done.

What I think happened was that you were continuing a conversation with him when he restored the article in his user talk page (admin-viewable only) while this was going; maybe you were not aware of that, and I wasn't cognizant enough to realize that were was something else important going on before his talk page got revoked. –MuZemike 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's say all of that is true, I have no way of knowing because I can't review the deleted history. In any case, there wasn't a 20 minute delay between the time the discussion took place and the revocation of talk page accesss. In fact, it was the very edits that took place during that period that I'm asking you to restore. I can't believe that you are claiming that a new user should be indefinitely blocked and have his talk page access revoked because he added a deleted article to his talk page. This user should have his talk page access restored and be allowed to finish discussing the terms of his unblock with his fellow human beings, not with machines who apparently have been given sysop status. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a concern with the revocation of talk page privileges (or his block in that matter, since it is apparent that you oppose his block), then please bring that up at the ANI thread and/or with the blocking admin. I can restore the page if you are that upset over it; my intention was not to get anyone upset (though everyone virtually is). –MuZemike 00:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose his block. He was blocked for good reason. It's a good block. However, I oppose the deletion of the unblock discussion I had with him, because it shows that he expressed interest in changing his behavior. I would like to know what the time frame was between the timestamp of his last comment about the unblock discussion I had with him (I asked him to take a break and come back and ask forgiveness) and the time his talk page access was revoked. Was it several minutes? Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I just restored the talk page, mainly so you can see what happened. Mainly, it was after this unblock request (which eventually caused talk page to be revoked). That last (4th) unblock request was made 20 minutes after he made it. –MuZemike 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see from this discussion, he expressed interest in changing his behavior at 06:35, 18 December, but his talk page access was revoked sometime around 06:38.[28] And it was revoked based on what he said at 06:18 not at 06:35. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The main user is bah2011 which seems to be a confluence of some initialism and a year, and I am not certain that we don't have a degree of lobbying and secret squirrel when we also consider m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#bet-at-home.com. Of course, I just could be spending too long cleaning spam and am very suspicious. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please undelete Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. The Wikiproject accepts all article drafts, regardless of whether a sockpuppet is involved. Especially when, in this case, it is of a subject that could quite possibly become notable in the future. Silverseren^C 02:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will not. Doing so will not only encourage him to continue his campaign when many users have already said that this will likely not make the mainspace. This would also fly in the face of the consensus reached in the AFD and Deletion Review that this is both non-notable and promotional. –MuZemike 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): In some cases, if a sockpuppet has created an article, the article is deleted, the information placed on a user's page, like yours, and that user creates the article, so there is no connection to the sockpuppet. It does break the history, but it does "disconnect" the article from the sock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. 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. Silverseren^C 02:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you DARE call me disruptive again, you hear me? I always try and be reasonable in my actions and is trying to reflect on what the current consensus say. –MuZemike 04:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Mike here on this one. He is one of the more (most?) reasonable admins here and I haven't seen him do anything unreasonable or something disruptive in the 5 years I have been here. I do believe that snarky comment was uncalled for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that calling Mike "disruptive" couldn't be farther from reality, I must state my disappointment at Mike's attitude in replying. Really, "Don't you DARE {...}, you hear me?" is clearly too strong and uncivil a strikeback for accusations that were, at best, mild. Just take a deep breath, cool off a bit, and reply civilly as we know you normally would. :) Salvidrim! 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not meant in that negative of a tone. I was only trying to point out that the removal of useful content that is being worked on is not a beneficial action for the project. The current consensus is that Circball is not notable, I agree with that consensus. Having a userified version is not overturning that consensus, it is making a draft to work on the subject so that it can one day be fit into the mainspace. I apologize for offending you. Silverseren^C 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I need to apologize for my outburst, if it means anything. Tensions were running too high for me, and I overstepped my bounds there. –MuZemike 15:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, this article Works of fiction set in 1999 looks... weird? --Hydao (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Works of fiction set in 2001 ... that "creature" from Phillipines is attacking again I guess..

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.69.4.22
• http://www.ip2location.com/112.201.75.81
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.69.64.101

--Hydao (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mega Mom: Ghost Halo, Mega Mom 2: Jack MLBP ... by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jackal_mlbp

--Hydao (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this page is fuck*d up too: List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes : "10b, "Operation: C.H.A.D.", Expanded Acronym: Charming Hero Avoids Destruction

Every KND operative except Sector V and the greatest operative ever: Numbuh 274, are left frozen by two new villains. Notes: Mega Mom and Destructo Dad have appeared as bosses in the aircraft boneyard level of MLBP's Revenge for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Also, Mega Mom and Destructo Dad are equipped with machine guns and missile launchers than just freeze guns (similar to Mr. Freeze's gun) in MLBP's Revenge for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Mega Mom 2: Jack MLBP was inspired from this episode." I give up... --Hydao (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

just to let you know me and the other user established that I wasn't him!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. You have nothing to worry about in that regard, then. –MuZemike 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Chip123456 (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to redirect this title for now to James Cameron#Avatar (2009). Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that, as long as it is plausible. –MuZemike 06:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirected to Battle Angel Alita#Film instead. Better spot. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This needs gives every appearance of needing to be SpeediClosed™. I can't do it 'cause I cast a !vote. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted Talk:Palestinian people yesterday to clean up its edit history, but it hasn't been restored yet. Any idea when you might be finished? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd, because I was going to delete the page, but I got the standard WMF error message when I tried; the deletion must have gone through anyways. I'm in the process of restoring it now.

Also, I will WP:TROUT myself for nearly locking up the servers in trying to do that to a page that big:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--MuZemike 17:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And there was really no need for the fish. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi, I'm requesting a block to the I.P. user 142.166.189.120. He/she is using multiple acounts to make persistent disruptive editing (genre warring, introduction of unsourced statements) in [29], [30], [31], [32], it also persistently removes the guitarrist Kurt Cobain from [33] and from [34]. This user currently uses a parallel i.p. to 198.164.211.80, (compare edit history) which, due it's persistent disruptive editing was previously reported in the administrator's noticeboard: [35], Here also, in the fourt paragraphan (see link No.70 in noticeboard) an afected user points a parallel I.P. whose first numbers match exactly and whose disruptive edits are very similar: 142.166.163.242. Aditional evidence to prove that all te I.P.s belongs to the same user: All of them deletes vandalism warnings from their talk pages [36], [37], [38]; victimizes itself if exposed, and when the I.P. location is tracked, all of them are from Canada: [39], [40], [41]. The incident in the administrator´s notice/incidents board finished with the I.P. user promising to not do disruptive editing again, but have relapsed, so enough warnings have been given.
No secrets: I know all about this because i was among the editors who have dealt with this user before, I know one of them personally (Carnotaurus044) who asked me to point all this to you. I also need to point that you blocked various users who were determined to revert the I.P.s' disruptive edits. I think that's all, and merry x-mas to you! Massivesquid (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a 1 week block on 142.166.160.0/19 for persistent edit warring across multiple articles. --MuZemike 20:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, that's great, hopefully he/she will understand and stop now, currently i'm dealing with another I.P. from wich i suspect belongs to the same user, however i won't report it to you until i'm sure about it. Massivesquid (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

. . . your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant 10 diamond? With only a single !vote for keeping, a no-consensus closure that results in the keeping of the article seems not to reflect the opinions offered—especially since the entire content of the article has been merged to Yair Shimansky. There seems no reason to include this promotional content in two separate articles (to say nothing of what reason there may be for including it in even one). Deor (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can develop a rough consensus for a redirect or merge, then there shouldn't be a problem with redirection or merging. Otherwise, with how that AFD went, there is no possible way for me to make any decision based on the discussion there, as people are recommending all sorts of different things; I cannot make that decision for you. --MuZemike 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll probably be taking this to DRV tomorrow, when I'm less tired. I'll notify you when I do. Deor (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

When you got one person saying that it should be deleted, one person saying that it should be kept, one person saying it should be redirected, and one person saying that it should be merged, I have no idea what the people involved in the AFD collectively want. --MuZemike 00:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Iamuptononogoodhaha. Do you have a drawer he belongs to so I can intelligently decline his request? --Jayron32 05:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

He basically started as an IP (one can easily make that connection between [42] and [43], which leads to the identical unblock requests here and here; virtually none of the edits from that IP have been constructive). Iamuptononogoodhaha was created just 2 minutes before the vandalism block on the IP occurred. Then came the other account and the ensuing unblock request. --MuZemike 06:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Declined his request. --Jayron32 06:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I know this article was deleted because the editor who created it was the sockpuppet of a banned editor. The thing is, the crash is notable enough to have its own article. Would it be possible for me to see either of the two versions of the banned article so I could recreate it? I do alot of edits on aircrash articles.

Ryan was prone to poor English but some of his work, accident boxes etc I might be able to use and that saves me having to create them from scratch. Please reply back here. I'll be checking for your response.- William 23:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I emailed you the content of the article so that you can see what you can use? --MuZemike 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Email is fine. Mine is my wikipedia editor name at AOL.com. Also how do I recreate this article. The page I'd start it on has the notices about its deletion and nowhere to start an article?- William 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I received your email and have fixed up an article on this aviation incident. Can I now get permission to post? The page is locked due to Ryan. I saw there is some review process but I don't understand how to make that submission- William 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have un-salted the page, so you should be able to start it again whenever you're ready. --MuZemike 18:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I just posted the new article.- William 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed on this topic, concerning a restructuring of the article. Had asked some time ago for the same thing, but you unfortunately didn't participate. Hula Hup (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

we wish you a merry christmas we wish a merry christmas we wish a merry christmas and a happy new year good tidings we bring to you and your kin. we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year

for more carols, go to: http://www.the-north-pole.com/carols/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar45596524 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

needs your input. Your checkuser block, see User talk:71.189.107.168. Grassy ass. --Jayron32 05:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You blocked 86.156.129.178; they're back as 86.156.129.247. Perhaps a range block would do? HurricaneFan25 — 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove his talk page privileges for the duration of the block, he's using his talk page now for the nonsense. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that User:Lee Haas is, by the evidence presented, a sock puppet. However, I feel that that split off of the seasons was the correct one. I request that Face Off (season 1) and Face Off (season 2) be restored. There were changes to Face Off (season 2) after the split including my own, and I would prefer not to lose that. I'm also open to the pages being restored into my userspace, and then moving them myself, if that fulfills the appropriate requirements better. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've userfied both pages for you. --MuZemike 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You. I understand taking actions against changes made by banned users...

Hello MuZemike. Please see the unblock requests and discussion at User talk:Rosomak. Your rangeblock here is set to ACB, but not AO, so it is preventing the user from editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a rationale for your closure decision in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Dee_Ann_McWilliams? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a fairly clear consensus that WP:MILPEOPLE was met, more specifically, that her status as a major general has established notability. Now, I could have also possibly closed as no consensus, but I don't see how I could have closed that as a delete. --MuZemike 17:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(chiming in here) Personally, a no consensus close was the outcome I was expecting. Certainly not delete. Concern is as expressed in the AfD -- that while WP:MILPEOPLE may have been met, WP:MILPEOPLE is an essay, not a guideline, and none of the substantive keep votes seemed to express any guideline or policy based justification for notability, which was the concern raised by the nominator. If this for some reason goes to DRV, I'd support a revision to no consensus, but definitely not overturning it altogether to delete. While I'm convinced this article doesn't pass notability muster, there was nothing even remotely resembling consensus in that particular AfD for deletion. Either way, thanks for explaining. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you contribute a comment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#socrata.com? You appear to know this person's other identity User:Crazy1980 or identities. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but as an admin it was your responsibility to answer the questions posed to you, and you never replied to any of them, nor did you reply to my comments on my talk page about my block extension and the assumption of sock-puppetting on a shared university IP in relation with User: TheOneWhoWalks.

Why were these real life threats made against me [[44]] completely ignored by admins, the interaction ban was violated a dozen times on my talk page, nothing was done either (for the record although this may be breaching the interaction ban, there were threats made against me and none of you did anything about it,so I had no choice) Have a nice day and a Happy New Year. TheFortunateSon (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What questions? About your blatant sockpuppetry in order to bait MarcusBritish? As far as that is concerned, my comment here stands, regardless as to whether or not you used that account or you got a friend to bait him for you. However, I still think that was your sockpuppet, and I will not lift that block. --MuZemike 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How was there baiting of MarcusBritish, and what disuption was caused? What 'evidence' do you have besides the fact it was a shared IP, the contributions contradict your assertion. And what is your response to the threats made about me by Marcus on Snowded's page, or are you going to continue to ignore that too?TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the edits copy the same behaviors you make. Myself and several other editors have already made that point. I have nothing else to say at this point. --MuZemike 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, nothing admins do these days surprises me anymore. Just address the threats made to me please (third time I have asked you). Bye now. TheFortunateSon (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike, this is a troublesome editor. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and it looks like I missed the indefinite block. In any case, I'm afraid we haven't heard the last from him, given his history of socking. --MuZemike 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But their edits are pretty transparent, I think. I wonder why they weren't indef-blocked immediately after this. Anyway, for fighting socks, we have you! If you were ever wondering why we pay you the big bucks. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to bring them around. Am I wasting my time? Do you have any further input.--Adam in MO Talk 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not right now. Let's see what happens, though. --MuZemike 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to ping you on this review... Not sure if you're starting off the New Years with a nice vacation or not, but just in case it slipped under your radar. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; hopefully I'll get to it later on. --MuZemike 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you have a look into Grwzrbzezin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) something "smells" about him. Mtking ^(edits) 00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing comes up or to mind. --MuZemike 00:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you might want to look at or comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YummyDonutsmmm. Mtking ^(edits) 03:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you blocked User:Undertakeranshu for sockpuppetry. I believe that User:Anshulkumardhiman is another sock of the same user, and I have blocked the account. I have also noticed some resemblances to editing by another blocked sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer, so I wonder if there may be sleepers. I was creating a SPI, but it occurred to me that, since you evidently know what other accounts are related to Undertakeranshu, it might be quicker and simpler to consult you. Can you tell me what other accounts you have connected to Undertakeranshu? Or perhaps you would prefer to just run a checkuser on Anshulkumardhiman. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell who the sockmaster is, but both accounts are most certainly  Confirmed as each other. --MuZemike 23:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Po Sum On. 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. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me where I ask is that lock requests? I am not of this Wikipedia and do not know where. Sorry my bad English. Thank you.Érico Júnior Wouters ^Talk 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean blocks? Go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if somebody is doing persistent vandalism. --MuZemike 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If by "lock" request you mean "Page Protection", you can post at WP:RFPP. Salvidrim! 10:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for one year on January 7, 2011, apparently returns to their old form immediately after block expires, see their contributions. Shearonink (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Was just about to raise this concern here myself. The IP is making unexplained changes to the nationalities and ethnicities of various actors (Peter O'Toole, Martin Benson and Claude Rains being three examples). Also adding categories that are unnecessary and unhelpful because they are the parents of subcategories that are already included. Some considerable reverting seems to be called for here. SuperMarioMan 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have made it for 3 years, but I suppose one is fine. --MuZemike 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Do you recall this block? It's supposed to expire in a couple of weeks and there's a new user caught there. After a quick CU, I'd tend to hardblock *.152 (with e-mail disabled) and unblock the range. What do you think? -- Luk ^talk 08:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to this via email if you don't mind. --MuZemike 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I was recently looking at the AfD discussion above, which you closed as no consensus. Looking at the discussion, while by pure numbers the !votes were about even, the actual content of the keep votes seems to be lacking. They seemed to consist of WP:WAX, "she is famous", "she is on tv", "she has an imdb" and the like. While I can't fault your closure, I just wanted to make sure it would not be offensive if I were to renominate the article for deletion so soon after your closure. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with a renomination. However, you may wish to be more tactful in your timing for any re-nomination; as you know, too soon will cause people to question your good-faithness of the re-nomination, which may hurt instead of help. That's just something, from my observations, that you may wish to keep in mind. --MuZemike 18:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. -- Luk ^talk 09:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother. I caught, what appeared to be, a one sided conversation between an IP and a new user account on the Talk:Heavy metal music page. The new user account is User:Whithe02. Just looking back at the talk page history I noticed posts from a , now blocked, account (you blocked) called User:Whiteandbleak... which was an account somehow tied to blocked editor User:Carnotaurus044. The similarity in posting style (and the near identical userpages) between User:Whithe02 and blocked User:Whiteandbleak made me suspicious. You, obviously, would be the one to identify if that suspicion is correct. I post directly to you simply because your were the blocking admin. If these accounts are somehow tied to User:Carnotaurus044 (recently blocked for 2 weeks by you) I believe that editor may be editing outside of his/her block under the guise of User:Massivesquid. WP:DUCK on the edit history of both. And both seem to also use an array of Mexican based IPs... I think?. Anyway, as I said, sorry to bother... but it did strike me as odd enough similarities to bring it to your attention. Apologies if its a red herring. Take care! Mr Pyles (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I reduce to semiprotection? It looks like one editor with multiple IPs versus everyone else. FYI, I found this because of a request at WP:RFPP. Also — please leave a talkback or a reply at my talk page, if you don't mind. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the IPs are solely at fault here. Moreover, this seems to be more purely a content dispute (albeit a lame one) regarding the order of the cast. I also note that one person has also supported rearranging by the order of the cast billing. 67.239.179.160 has indicated using the talk page but hasn't gotten to it, yet; at this point, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it hasn't happened, yet.

All that said, I see no harm in letting the dust settle a bit to see if an agreement can come on the order of the cast. In the meantime, I think the article should stay full-protected. --MuZemike 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I closed as a merge, not a no-consensus, because I think there was clear consensus for the merge. I made the page 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain as a skeleton target for it. This is I suppose compatible with your no-consensus close of the other parts, but I am going to modify my close to make that clearer. You might want to do something similar, but it's up to you. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This was why this should have been a mass nomination. Some of the articles in that chain had a consensus in the AFD, while others didn't. I realized that I couldn't close some of them as that would have been inconsistent with the entire plan that somebody would merge them all. --MuZemike 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Roll Tide, MuZemike! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

184.44.131.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now active and appears to be very similar in behavior and pattern to the other "Tailsman67" edits made by various anon IPs out of the Pensacola, Florida area. This one geolocates there, as well, and is already editing Sonic the Hedgehog related articles. --McDoobAU93 19:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to notify Mike also ;)

I believe it is ban evasion, since this rangeblock is still in effect. The other rangeblock expired today.

For all the needed evidence that a single editor is behind all this, see the information page. Salvidrim! 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to ping you and let you know that I believe I've taken care of the issues for Ontario Highway 427's GAN. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this. Thanks —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any issue there in which I should be aware of? --MuZemike 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello MuZemike. A cowgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything to trace back to the checkuser request or the types of edits that led to the block. Any clue why you blocked 76.91.157.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in November? A cowgirl (talk · contribs) can't edit due to the IP block (autoblocked/shared address block), and I'm not sure whether she's innocent or related. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the all the various restrictions around Israel/Palestine conflicts are sufficient to justify a checkuser on an obvious sock that has not yet become disruptive, so I'll just point at the discussion about BothHandsBlack (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and let you decide.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who the user would be a sock of, so there is nothing I really can do here. --MuZemike 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since an admin is now, groundlessly, referring to me as 'an obvious sock', please feel free to carry out any checks on me that are possible. I can even provide my real name and email address if I can be assured that it will not be passed beyond yourself. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no use running anything, as I have nothing to check against (not to mention that this is seems a bit like fishing IMO). In any case, I see that this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so I think everybody else is carrying it from there. --MuZemike 23:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you have a look at User_talk:Fastily#1007D?? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. --MuZemike 23:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is enough to either open a ban discussion or declare 1007D de-facto banned.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've found a series of pages I'm working on, all edited by Kathyrncelestewright and LaSylphide, both confirmed ILT socks. I'd like to stubify most of them and looking at the histories have seen that most have also been edited by Goldfritha. I don't like to point fingers unnecessarily, nor do I like to throw out good edits, but cleaning this mess has been long and tedious. Is a significant overlap good enough reason to run a CU on Goldfritha? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

However, the other edits and participation (including on Commons) lead me to doubt that this is ILT. --MuZemike 06:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I asked. In this case would it better not to stubify? I don't want to take out good edits but don't have the time to scrub the bad edits. Truthkeeper (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this but there's more: Mzilikazi1939 has created all these pages. Same style as ILT. It's unending. If we can determine the account is a sock of ILT, I'll go through and stubify all these pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but amazing as it may seem, that is  Unrelated to ILT. --MuZemike 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. That is interesting, but we've become too cynical. At least those pages won't need work so that's very good news. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see the nom was archived before I returned (I was asked to by one of your co-nominators); I don't know whether I'd have been much use (being jealous of rationing my time on WP, as you have to too, I see).

Don't be upset: just leave it for a few weeks, then with strategic distance work it up again and renominate; it should be a short job.

I haven't had a chance to say, "Nice work at ACE2011". Tony (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

...Reincarnation of this this one actively at work now...reincarnation needs ban-hammered.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And banhammerered. --MuZemike 02:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call, thank you! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	In fact, for performing the onerous task of going through and cleaning up after all those dodgy AfDs, you deserve something shinier as a thank-you. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work! Nataev (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)