User talk:Spitfire/Archive 2

Reverting vandalism doesn't count. I am reporting the user to VirtualSteve and he can block all the socks. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 02:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

When you have an opportunity would you check on this article? I found it watching RC and saw a "cite error" message displayed. I attempted to correct the problem but was not able to succede. Fortunately I did no damage, either :) It's a low priority thing, but I try not to leave an article in disarray and this one is not cooperating :-\ See ya 'round Tiderolls 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...and adopt the "popcorn" version as your own idea! lol LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm insulting Sonichu, not Chris. It's not an attack. 76.247.154.143 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

sync from User talk:Excirial, Spitfire^Tally-ho!
Hello Excirial, just a quick note to say I've removed the db template you put on Busan Foreign School, I've edited it a little, and believe that it should now be fine, if you disagree please do feel free to talk to me about it, great work in the new page patrol, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How could i ever disagree with such a change? It looks a-ok to me. The initial page lacked even the most basic context to indentify what "Busan Foreign School" the article referenced to so i could not make a stub out of it. But that problem is obviously solved now. Great work! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Glad you like it, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heheh, sorry, did I keep giving you edit conflicts? :) It needs to be moved to a better-capitalized title at some point, but I'll let you do the honours/leave it til you're done. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Chocks away! :) Gonzonoir (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Today was the second time you noticed something was going on. The first time was when I created categories in article namespace, the second time a conflict with another editor. How come you are aware in realtime of what is going on? Debresser (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, members of a national legislature are de facto notable. DS (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Information of this sort should have a stand alone website. Nevermind, I made the necessary changes. Needs a bit of cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, been editing too many articles, so I might have muddled up somewhere. Delete the tag if you felt was not necessary. Keep up the good work. Keep wikipedia safe from Vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh...I guess I get the feeling that if someone creates an article prompting a reader to visit 'this so-and-so website' and 'that so-and-so website' about a company that has no importance asserted about it, the attempt at "spamming" and promoting the subject supersedes its lack of importance. But, nah, don't mind you making the changes at all. I'll go with A7 instead if you feel it's best. Cheers! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I actually meant to tag the article for speedy deletion because it doesn't seem to meet wik-policy. If you agree, you could retag. Happy editing.SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay...feel free to stop by my userpage, view it and sign the guestbook if you want;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The lack of tagging on the article may be a Twinkle error, or me prematurely navigating away from the page back before Twinkle had finished. I'll be more patient in future, and look out for any re-occurance. Thanks for the heads-up, sorry for the confusion. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you are editing the article on fragmentation analysis.... Are you adding something to it, or are you deleting it? As I mentioned in my talk page, I am in the process of editing the topic and will have more information by 5:00pm EST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipware (talk • contribs)

Hi .. noting your concern on references, can you please suggest what is suitable for inclusion? Does trivial mean they should not be <refs>, or are not worthy of supporting the article? Some guidance appreciated, thx.

Stennie (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spitfire! I didn't mistakenly remove the category "barrages" from the Bristol Harbour article. I removed it because its addition was so obviously a mistake. Bristol Floating Harbour, to give it its accurate name, is not a tidal barrage, like Cardiff Bay or the Rance estuary in Brittany. There has been talk, since Brunel's time, of putting a barrage at the mouth of the Avon, but it hasn't happened.

As I am sure that you know, there is some interest in building a Severn Barrage, but there is no tidal barrage in or near Bristol Floating Harbour. I have worked boats on that harbour since 1983 and I do know what I am talking about.

There is a weir across the river Avon at Netham and an underfall dam at Rownham, but neither serves any tidal barrage purpose. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs - Ah, I see, I just saw it listed at Barrage (tidal) and assumed.... - now you know why Wikipedia is NOT an reliable source!!!! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to AfD of Luke Ayling, sorry, author was notified but assumption is normally made (by me anyway) that recent contributors who have a genuine interest retain articles on their watchlist for a few days. Although this was a relatively new article with relatively few editors, it is often impractical to notify all contributors and so I rarely bother.--ClubOranje^T 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re this: just to let you know, the time between speedy nomination and completion is a minimum of 48 hours. Thanks for your work, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, had a brain fart. Bcspro (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please have look at article and discussion page. ThanksDjflem (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've had repeated problems with a user (over a period of possibly half a year) consistently not acting in good faith regarding edits, acting arrogantly, and (IMHO) discouraging people from editing pages that he polices. I noticed that you had a disagreement with them some time ago and even went so far as to suggest that if they can't AGF they should consider not undoing so many changes. Nothing has changed in this respect. I personally believe that even though this user does remove a lot of vandalism, their net effect on wikipedia is negative, and that they are (a) removing a lot of useful information quickly (sometimes they will remove an entire edit just because it does not conform with one tiny thing - even if the rest of the edit is fine and informative), and (b) discouraging a lot of newcomers with this attitude. I thought I'd mention it here since you seemed to really know what's going on through your discussion with them - is it appropriate for me to say who they are, here? Sorry to bother you if this is all too much trouble. Luminifer (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. you must have emailed me about this. I might have changed my settings since then - can you try again? Luminifer (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

. Careful please, that lasted hours. Prodego ^talk 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Flappychappy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flappychappy (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/In_review#Vandals_are_mostly_children.2C_so_watch_what_children_would_edit..
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 21:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Simply south, Spitfire, and Nutiketaiel: I'm going to approve "Carpe Diem" so I've answered on my talk page. All the best! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the WP:CSD A2 criteria. I'll make sure that I only use it if there is an equivalent article. If it's a language that I do speak (my Arabic is only limited and dialectal at the moment), I'll redirect next time, or leave it to someone who can translate. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to have a formal merge discussion for a redirect and there is no need for a merge in the case of these articles as a WP:DUE appropriate description of this fringe theory exists at the destination article. I will copy these comments to the appropriate talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So you mentioned that there should be an essay about this, but there isn't one. So maybe I'll write it. What should the essay be about? Just more on what I wrote to start the MOTD? And if I did write an essay, how does one go about getting it put somewhere else in WP besides my userpage? Thanks for giving me something to think about. :-) Hires an editor (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the strangeness at the Pain Hertz deletion ... BTW, I emailed you (I think) some weeks ago, did you ever get it? Luminifer (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again... Things are getting ugly now... sigh... Luminifer (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, (since you're involved) Luminifer (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, In response to your message Reg White built originally the ISO and then a short time afterwards introduced the Buzz as a smaller version and then the Boss which was a larger twin trapeze boat to the ISO family.

Topper and Laser flooded the boats onto the market at the same time to out do one another and Laser won.

The Boss followed the Laser 5000 in sailing history and Topper International collapsed.

There is the Buzz's twin wire big rig version called the Spice if you have ever heard of that, it sold in small numbers and was faster than the ISO!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Much as I appreciate you adding three sources for his supposed birthdate, can I counteract with , where Armstrong himself says that his birthday is in March? iMDb is certainly not reliable here, btw, and I'm not sure about Chortle/TV.com, which may also have got it from there (every site referencing another wrong site, perhaps)? Stephenb (Talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I *do* so appreciate the "I'm not attacking you" attack post! In any case, this has been discussed before, as I see you've now learned, and if you look at my part of the discussion, you'll see I posted a possible source that, if it's the right Alexander Armstrong, is 100% solid evidence. As I'm not in the UK, I can't exactly check the listing itself; that's why I said in my revert "if someone could check that" or similar. I suppose someone could ask AA himself on Twitter something to prove it (what his middle name is; what his mother's maiden name is), though I don't know if that's exactly RS... Bangdrum (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melanie Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) 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.

Thanks ... Do think about one for Halloween! Victuallers (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my tardiness in taking note of some recent help from you on my talk page. I'm well aware that it is not my page in a literal sense, but you are welcome to make changes there as you see fit. You were one of the first editors to offer advice and help when I started here and I keep your opinions and insights in high regard. I hope things are well with you and yours, Tiderolls 11:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the vandal that warning, but... isn't anything going to be done about them? I mean, they just vandalised my talk page out of the blue! --LordNecronus (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Awarded for the tactful way you recently questioned another editor's use of uw-vandal3. Pointillist (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...I don't think it would be helpful to discuss the matter further in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this one, I deleted some of the content from it (before it was deleted then recreated) since the long list of bf's could potentially be a negative thing for a young girl. Given that it's a BLP, I wasn't taking any chances. (Plus, it's easily within policy as removal of unsourced info). --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

it is in the best interest of everyone to ensure safety and love my previous edit was changed so i am to assume that some sort of hatred of america is a common theme here 71.197.46.219 (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a general message to get people to contribute as we are running out again so if you could please do. Please also see Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day#The Future. Note to anyone who reads this, WP:MOTD/N. Simply south (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your comments in Wikiquette.  IShadowed  ✰  19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to be of help. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I had received a comment in my first review that my article looks like an advertisement. I have attempted to rewrite the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiberlink/sandbox) with an encyclopedic tone. Can you please review my article? Also, can we please remove the tags (as the article is created in my sandbox space and these tags seem irrelevant). If there are any sections which appear to be still like an advertising effort, please point out that sections and give appropriate examples.. I am here to stay and would like to contribute more to wiki writing.

Thank you Fiberlink (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. --15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm rather new to RfCs and was not sure where to comment so I figured I would write here. Regarding your second point there some things which I probably should have brought up in Wikiquette alerts. The first is on the block. Caroline edits from the same computer as a convicted sockpuppeteer who has made the same edits that she is making, she is the reason her ip was blocked. It was unblocked for reasons that I am not privy to and this is acceptable to me, but highly suspicious. Per the second, Caroline is a textbook SPA, even as an ip she only edited the same narrow band of abortion related articles and only for the same purpose. - Schrandit (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that the block was overturned but keep in mind that all the evidence that contributed in this overturning was submitted by Caroline and taken, in good faith, by the community and this has left me suspicious. - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for awarding me that barnstar. I'd like to get this content dispute resolved and move on to opportunities to earn other barnstars. CarolineWH (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to this edit, I'd like to briefly offer some information. Yes, I did a bit of detective work with the intent of determining whether allegations of sockpuppetry linking both Specter and the anonymous editor at that unnamed company with Spotfixer had any merit. These allegations were based solely on the fact that the editors had similar views about a particular technical topic, not anything that I would consider convincing.

As you may be aware, I was also accused of being a Spotfixer sockpuppet, which is what spawned my interest in this. Coincidentally, Schrandit was a key figure in most of these accusations, which is another aspect of my interest. The one private thing I know about Spotfixer -- and carefully did not WP:OUT -- is the name of the school they attended, based what I know about a publicly-revealed IP that they once used. Using this knowledge, I made the phone calls to determine if I could find some evidence that any of the above-mentioned editors could be linked. Based on the absence of evidence where it would be expected, I am convinced to my satisfaction that they are not. This confirms my suspicions about most, if not all, of the Spotfixer sockpuppetry claims being false.

I'd like to clarify that my motivation was to check the accuracy of these accusations, not to make accusations or in any way reveal private information. I believe that what I did was within the bounds of ethical journalism, in addition to the rules of Wikipedia, and I stand behind it. It is my considered opinion that Paul was mistaken to bring this into the RfC/CU, even more so than he was mistaken to launch an RfC/CU in the first place. CarolineWH (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Basketball's not my sport (more of a cricket man) but I believe that would count as a full-court press? – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, never intended to remove your reply on the Village Pump, just the duplicate section. I was about to sort it out when I noticed you already had. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The same as I said before. I use a bot (welcome.py), so I can't difference between vandals and good users. Sorry. --MisterWiki talking! :-D ^{(SIGN!!!/REVIEW/SUPPORT ME AT META!!!)} 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, stopped the tool. --MisterWiki talking! :-D ^{(SIGN!!!/REVIEW/SUPPORT ME AT META!!!)} 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say hi. Come igloo with me. :] A8UDI 18:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal, but I definately understand the annoyance of vandals on your user page. Vcelloho (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have copied your message

Hi , when you tag a page for deletion, if you reload the page, you will find a section on the delete template which says something along the lines of:

Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:nn-warn|Dj slyce|header=1}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.

It's a good idea to copy the template and paste it onto the user talk page of the creator of the article. If you need any help with this please don't hesitate to ask me. Kind regards,

onto my list of standard messages that I use with TextExpander. Consider making a template out of it. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in working on the Eagle Series project, but alas due to work commitments (third year of uni is a pain) I think I will struggle to find too much time to put towards it until around February. However we can still by all means plan what we could do. TheTrojanHought (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The stubbornness would be the two involved and the ANI and me, that is. My general logic on the situation basically comes to the following:

• Both users have shown signs of stubborn behavior at some point
• Recent events have learned toward extra stubborn behavior from Powergate92
• Zero attempts seem to have been made in good faith at any dispute resolution, which is at least what has to be suggested at some point if nothing is extremely flagrant
• WQA instructions as listed at ANI: impolite or uncivil communications with other editors ...since civility has been lacking in some forms, I'd rather that tie together with collective stubbornness and hope one try at a higher review might "highly suggest" waling away or just backing down awhile would suffice so block aren't needed. Both of them have better things to do than spend time here.
• The thread sat about for hours on end without any response, and generally I'll put in an attempt at a neutral review as a stop-gap for more input. None came.
• There was no request for sanctions or anything of the like. Original statement even said it was brought to the community for assistance, and with just the recent somewhat uncivil twinkle comment to work with that's highly unlikely to see any block.

Both the users are experienced and should know that neither should push their luck any further or there would most certainly be blocks. Highly doubting either has that in mind, one last stab at some common sense seemed like it'd be the most likely in any. We're also both rollbackers, so appealing to common sense of experienced editors should be a pretty easy solutione.
That said, I admit I was clearly assuming too much out of them both. I just wish more people would have piped up in the time gaps. ANI also isn't a place to solicit sanctions without overwhelming incivility or other violations, so I suppose I give up. If a reminder that either could be blocked with any further incidents after a flat "walk away, or I can't say I didn't warn you" isn't enough to actually stop the arguments, I suppose either gets what they deserve to stop anything in the future. My decisions were based on what is specifically said to take to WQA on that ANI page (as I said above), though I know your quote on its purpose is also completely accurate. I surrender on good faith on the report and wish you better luck :( ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i'm not sure what the official stance on it is, although it looks neater if it's clumed under the same heading. Going on other articles I suggest putting it all under the international responce section. It appears thats the thing to do. Nath1991 (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs, :), yeah just put the respective flag next to whoever is responding to it. I.e Australian flag next to a Australian responce to it. Cheers Nath1991 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On 8 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 8 December 2009 Baghdad bombings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Nice work - Dumelow (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah righto, thanks for sorting that - I thought it didn't look right, somehow. Rob (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to do. Did I goof? ~ Robin :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackygirl (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You have to be able to take a break every now and then! he he --Mackygirl (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...for showing me where I was going. I need to remember that you don't extinguish fire with fire but with water.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Reboot The Robot, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot The Robot. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned the article up, and don't hold much interest in the subject. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just clear through the history and notify everyone. Don't feel too special.  ;) Toodles. --Jayron32 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, I don't mind, its a good idea to notify everyone, as you have done. Besides, if you hadn't notified me no doubt I'd have had a tantrum Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, users are allowed to dispute prod tags, vandals and socks may not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bless you (answered on my talk too, but will add here) ... Note, I've had you on my watchlist for awhile ... and can't remember why ... Perhaps you've said something I really liked ... defended someone who deserved defense ... or maybe I just like the picture in my mind from the word "Spitfire." (Its history, and all its connotations that derive from it). lol Waxing a bit too gushy-rhetorical, but, as I said: bless you. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your holiday wishes, Spitfire. I hope that you and yours enjoy a very happy Christmas :) Tiderolls 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please state with complete specificity at this page what grounds you have for your suggestion that I ever insulted another Wikipedian by email.

Note that I have quoted the email in its entirety on that page. Tell me what in that email you consider insulting. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Paul Smith (politician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Smith (politician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has just been semi-protected by EdJohnston due to IP socking. If these IPs can edit the article by making requests on the talk page, rather than by creating regular accounts, that would defeat the purpose of the page protection. So even if the content of the requests seem sound, I'd suggest not to follow up on these requests. Regards.  Cs32en  20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I spent about 20 10 (well, maybe that's an exaggeration) minutes checking that all of the sources fitted with the statements. I wasn't exactly going to blindly copy and paste whatever the IP asked me to *chuckle* however, if they make a reasonable request that checks out, then why shouldn't I perform it? Semi-protection is to prevent edit-warring/vandalism, not good faith and well sourced edits. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that you have checked the sources, and it is of course standard practice to help IP editors on semi-protected pages. In this case, however, it would be helpful if the IPs would create accounts, and they will be less likely to do this if they can successfully request changes to the article. There will be more requests like the one that has already been made, and I assume that you wouldn't want to spend your time editing repeatedly on behalf of the IP editor(s?) on this page anyway. I'd give your more info on this case if you would want to know more about it, but it's a bit complicated. It probably involves an editor who has set up sockpuppets that are reverting each other, as well as IP socks of the same editor, to disguise the socking.  Cs32en  21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it'd be better if they could just create accounts, and I did advise the editor to make themself an account at User talk:Debresser. As for the background on the story, I think I'll leave that for another day Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you ever feel like you want to know more about it, call me. ;-) Best regards.  Cs32en  21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to concur with Cs32en, based on their contributions this IP editor appears to be either User:Top Gun and/or User:Mujahid1947, both of which are indef blocked for a range of very good reasons. The articles have been protected to as part of efforts to discourage this/these editor/s. Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, AGF and all that. You could go to SPI if you want to get them checked out (although you'd need good evidence), they've now made the account Akhlaque1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In any case, all I saw was a request for an addition of well sourced and useful matieral, of course, it could turn out that this editor is something more than they seem, but there was nothing wrong with the edit that they requested be made to the article. Anyway, I'm logging off now. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear the that the account has been created. Should you consider filing an SPI request against the account (or any other that might emerge due to this issue), please let me know before you take any action. Regards.  Cs32en  22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, so much for that. Nick's blocked him now, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to semi-protect your talk page to stop this guy spamming it? Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, done - it's semi-protected for four days. I've semi-protected my talk page for a week. He's looking for meatpuppets everywhere he can at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have really thanks to you for add the information in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan Actually i want to add the information but edit button is removed. Can you please add the edit button so i can add the correct information. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.68.189 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Now i make my account.I doesnt want to make account here because my friends tell me that on wikipedia, if you write information without refrence then that information removed and your account blocked.Now i test wheither my friends are true or lier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhlaque1947 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is important to reference the content that you add, and if you don't it may be removed, I've posted you a welcome template with some helpful links, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. After a brief discussion with Nathan and PeterSymonds, we decided that you would be fine as a trainee clerk for SPI. Do you happen to use IRC? If so, is there any chance you could join the channel #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect? Thanks. NW (Talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spitfire I only joined wikipedia a few days ago, so im still trying to get the hang of it. Whats this edit conflict thing that keeps popping up? Sorry if im messing with your writing. Um so yeah mabye if we could coordinate it so that were not both working on an article at the same time. Do you know how to put a picture onto an article? Iv been asking around but nobody has got back to me yet. I feel like i shouldn't be writtin here. Is this how i send you stuff or is there another way? Bye MJD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJDietrich (talk • contribs)

That is what happens when one edits at 5AM LOL. Thanks for the fix. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please correct your last edit. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.78.89 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If another possible sock is created/appears (Special:Contributions/PeshawarPat), should (can) it be added to an existing case? Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I went ahead and added it (with a note saying I added it after clerk endorsed). Please undo if this was incorrect. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up regarding added account - I added a note when I added it indicating it had been added AFTER the endorsement. Excuse the confusion. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Reply to your reply on my talk) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombaker321 is an abuse of process, and is a false attack. The evidence is NOT explicit; and WITHOUT verified form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected, and this should be followed.

I have responded here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombaker321 I am very disappointed that the process is being gamed. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, not sure if I formatted the report correctly on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiuser999120 or added it to WP:SPI right... do you think you could take a quick look? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing so now, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, cheers. I'm a bit new to all that exciting syntax! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, all correct and accounted for now, it's pretty tricky to correctly format it when you're writing it as a new case to a previously archived one, as opposed to a brand new case. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So confusing that I made a mistake too > Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad it gave you a laugh, now get reading! – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spitfire, I also thought about changing the "<" to a ">". I'd say that 100 is smaller than the number of times the page was vandalized, so [number of vandalism edits]>100.  Cs32en  22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah right, oh well. Was an old error then. Cheers. SGGH ^ping! 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that any old troll can create a sockpuppetry page and make idiotic claims? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the sockpuppet(eer) tags with the extra parameters that you put on the pages of the two accounts I blocked. I wanted to make sure they were flagged as blocked, but I didn't want X4n6 named as the puppeteer. —C.Fred (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you see it now . It looks like the sockpuppets were created by X4n6 to harass my account after the thread was posted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comments to the investigation page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've self endorsed a CU on X4n6 to clear this up. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't notice that the page had already been tagged for speedy delete until I went to his talk page after TW auto warned him. When I went back to change the template, you were way ahead of me. Thanks, and good work as well! -- GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify for me the issues regarding sockpuppet templates? They are of the few things that cannot be deleted from a user or talk page, correct? What is the suspected sock template? The user is blocked indef now, but still denies socking, claims my request for investigation was declined (because of my de-request for a checkuser) due to lack of evidence and erased the notice to the block reviewing admin I left regarding the SPI. I've asked the admin who reviewed if he would block the sock (even though he (in admitted error) called the case "thin") so it may all be moot in this case anyway. I guess we'll see. Auntie E. (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ETA:Case has been closed by MuZemike. Auntie E. (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack him, i just added a funny line that i thought would add a bit of a humor effect to his "dull" talk page, get it? If not, contact me IMMEDIATELY! (I like talking to people).--89.240.250.212 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) but it's funny!--89.240.250.212 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can i create a BOT that address puts {{welcome}} template to every new user --  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 10:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied in #wikipedia-en-help Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just would like to know why it takes so much time for this investigation whereas facts are obvious ?... Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer after so much time (i don't know why so much time whereas facts were so obvious, really strange for me... Really odd & especially after the result of the investigation). May i know why such a decision ???... I'm not familiar with wikipedia policy... This user is promoting racial, community hatred, but for the moment i have seen no warning on his page... Really, really strange... Rajkris (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check out this new guideline. I picked up pieces from the MOTD pages and added some rules of my own. Please comment on its talk page or WT:MOTD. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 06:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are quite wrong for dismissing the user:Esoglou case, since there are clearly more undiscovered sockpuppets out there that you do not want to investigate, such as user:Defteri for example. I think this account is an illicit sockpuppet of user:Platia, which was banned as a clone of user:Lima and user:Soidi. Since there is a maxuimum luimit of altenrate accounts, this account should probably be banned. ADM (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)