User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

an odd question

Hi HelloAnnyong - have an odd question. An article I'm currently working on has a source named Ming Xie (from the University of Beijing). Initially I put last name = Xie, first name = Ming, but then changed to last name = Ming, first name = Xie, which is being questioned and I've changed now a third time. Btw - the article is Ezra Pound - currently nominated at FAC. I realize I don't know the correct manner of rendering first name/last name for a Chinese source and thought you could advise. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The convention is to go with what's the most common use to English readers. In this case, the source says "Ming Xie", so I would go with that. You may also want to take a look at WP:NC-CHN. Let me know if you need anything else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I've gone with Ming Xie, and the link will help if I need it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

The overly discussed YouTube video aside, the article is biased and reads like a fan club. Therefore, I've decided to tag it in order to raise awareness, but even that it being reverted. Doesn't seem just at all. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why you think the article reads like a fansite. Adding in claims of bias and fancruft just because there's a consensus not to include your text about the YouTube video really isn't right. As to the issue, sourcing isn't the issue here anymore; it's a question of weight. Why does this one particular event need to be included in the article? Or in other words, how does including stuff about the video improve the article? I really don't think it does add much at all. Further, this is a BLP article, so it's subject to more stricter inclusion criteria. The folks over at BLPN have stated that it shouldn't be included. My advice to you here is to drop the issue. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the whole shebang that I've gone through so far, you can see that I've provided an extensive explanation several times: the video indicates a certain attitude Couric displayed towards the Palins. Yeah, seemingly just a playful remark and would have been trivial by itself, but the multiple reliable sources I've provided all mention that the Palin interviews followed shortly, and that some have interpreted the interviews as negatively biased. The correlation is practically spelled out, but... never mind. Of course I'm dropping the issue, do you see another choice for me here (other than a permaban)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked me, I've answered with a follow-up question... no reply? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I really don't have much else to say about this. A consensus has more or less been formed, and I tend to agree with it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Belated notification...

...Oops, I should have done this much sooner. I mentioned you in passing at WP:ANI#Sock puppet interest in WP:SPI (I agreed with an administrative action you'd performed). Apologies for not letting you know at the time. FWIW, the issue has been resolved, but you might find the report useful/interesting regardless. TFOWR 13:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. Semiprotecting it was a good call. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It was. I seem to have a mental-block about SPI and protection, for some reason. Semi was something I should have done, and much sooner... TFOWR 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Kadish

I am Kevin Kadish, a songwriter and producer who has sold over 11 million records as certified by the RIAA and has contributed many recognizable songs to pop culture. I have written or produced records for the likes of Miley Cyrus, Jason Mraz, Willie Nelson, Sheryl Crow, Rob Thomas, Nikki Sixx, Meatloaf, Taylor Hicks, Gloriana, Stacie Orrico, Joe Jonas, Coldwater Jane, Bif Naked, Skillet, etc...

I wrote, produced, and engineered, Jason Mraz "Wordplay" and "Geek In The Pink" for which i was nominated for a grammy for Best Engineered record. My two songs were the ONLY radio singles on Mr. A-Z. I received an ASCAP Award for Stacie Orrico "(There's Gotta Be) More To Life" (it was one of the most played songs on radio in 2005). In 2006, I also received an #1 award from SoCan (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) for writing the #1 song "Flawed Design" by Stabilo.

Please verify my notability with www.allmusic.com and reconsider "undeleting" my profile on wikipedia.

thanks again...

KevinKadish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowguy (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is about something from like seven months ago. One issue here is that there's no real way to prove that you actually are Kadish. We don't have a way to do that, and it probably shouldn't be done anyway. But supposing you are Kadish, you should know that we have a policy about being a conflict of interest, and that you shouldn't really write about yourself. It turns into a way of promoting yourself or just otherwise writing in a way that's not maintaining a neutral point of view. Beyond that, though, there's also a list of criteria for determining whether or not there should be an article for someone in music, and I'm not really all that convinced that an article about Kadish should be written. But that's just me.

Anyway, I'm not going to undelete the article. If you want you can try the Articles for Creation page, where you can create a test version of the article and editors there will help determine whether or not it should be an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez

Please unlock Rick Sanchez --93.82.8.98 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Declined. Try {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about your recent protection of La Luz Del Mundo page

First, thanks for doing your part in protecting that page. After I published some controversial, but nonetheless true, facts on their wiki page it has been attacked repeatedly by its extremist Christian followers. I was wondering what happens now that it's been "protected", and if there is a way to lock the page in order to prevent further vandalism. Thanks for your time and contributions. RidjalA (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to fully protect the article (so only admins can edit it) just to preserve your edits. No single editor owns an article, and articles are meant to be built collaboratively. The article will be automatically unprotected in a few days, so if there is vandalism on the article then it can be reprotected. Alternatively, if you guys start fighting about it again, the article will be fully protected longer. That is not the preferred solution, by the way, and edit warring does come with consequences. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight. Edit warring on that page has not been much of an issue as the vandalism that's occurred recently. I know it's not going to end since their followers are tens of thousands of people strong, so it's a tough one to manage since it's not a random act of vandalism we're dealing with. Furthermore, I think it's disheartening that editors pay the price now whenever the page gets locked, which was why I was wondering if there was any other way to filter vandalism besides "protecting" the page. Keep up the good work RidjalA (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

Isn't the whole point of CU to find similarities based on IP etc. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we won't do something like confirm User X == 192.168.0.1. CU will confirm that User X == User Y, but won't divulge the IP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So it's a privacy thing. Ok. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ObserverNY

Hi, HA. As you may have seen, I've just blocked an IP that signed as "ONY" at the IBDP talk page. I checked the SPI archive first, and it matched to previous ONY IPs. Is it worth filing a post-block SPI report, or do you reckon the block's sufficient? (Asking you because TK pointed out you had a lot of SPI experience after I ran away screaming...!) TFOWR 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Um, I don't really have an opinion one way or another, but it might be nice to have a full record of her sockpuppeting. Submit a report and I'll just mark it closed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is done. (I did this last time, I think, but that was back when I was newbie-admin and didn't feel totally comfortable with duck blocks. Now I tend to think "meh" and get on with my life ;-) Slightly different here, as I knew there was a record of socking that we should probably keep up to date). TFOWR 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha. It's all taken care of now. Pleasure doing business with you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your warning.

Dear Hello Annyong,

With all due respect, I do not understand why you have warned me.

Please refer to my comments at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonyhamster/Archive#Comments_by_accused_parties__.C2.A0.C2.A0

If you feel that it is appropriate to penalise genuine contributors like this, then it is a poor reflection on the pillars of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyhamster (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Please, read this [1].
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Derek Acorah

Thanks for semi. All the IPs are one person, works for Admiral Insurance in Kingston upon Hull, started at lunchtime. I got him blocked on Admiral's IP, but he moved on to vandalising (exactly the same edits) via mobile O2, and it's impossible to ask for a rangeblock on that or you'd knock out half the yuppies in the UK (my daughter Facebooks via Orange mobile and was utterly indignant to find her IP blocked for posting porn - not her at all, but next day she travelled to another city, new IP, and unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a mess. And you're right, a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. I think all we can do here is RBI. (Sidenote: I wasn't aware that the term yuppie was used outside of the US. Good to know.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, where you learn summat new every day :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Trainee Clerk

I just want to say that you are doing great at the CheckUser requests as a trainee. :)  JoeGazz  ▲  00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Utley

How is the reaction to his statement unnecessary? Its not taking up a lot of space, its only two lines long. Without the two lines describing reactions people have no idea how the comments were received which may impact the opinion they get of Chase Utley. The purpose of the article is to adequately portray information about him. Leaving out the line I added about Werth's reaction and the line that was already there about the crowds reaction takes away from the article. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

age

what your problem? there were diffrent prespective on her age, the source must be included on that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanegara (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

the source are reliable, in islamic review 1980, and T.O shavanas article, you can found evidences with historical context, more depth study on the subject than just from "foot note" on a book like ref 21 and you say they are unreliable? have you check all the reference reliability? or wiki only show selective perspective of history only not whole perspective about the subject? let the reader choose their own perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanegara (talk • contribs) 04:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/OneInAMillion96

Hello HelloAnnyong! I just wanted to let you know about my suspicions that User:OneInAMillion96 is at it again. I guess his block expired and I believe he has created another account here at User:ILoveBrandy30. Clicking on the 'Aaliyah' link on the page goes to OneInAMillion96's user page. And looking at their contribs so far, its' associated with what OneInAMillion96 was editing before. Ga Be 19 23:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I've opened another case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OneInAMillion96, if you want to leave your thoughts there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning on multiple accounts

Hi. Wikipedia has a policy where users are restricted to one account. As such, your other account, Yaroslav K (talk · contribs), has been indefinitely blocked from editing. Please remember that you cannot use other accounts to circumvent policy on generating consensus. If you do create another account and continue such behavior, you will be blocked indefinitely. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User Yaroslav K (talk · contribs), is my boyfriend, we are living together, so we are using the same computers but under different logins in Wiki. Does this also restricted? I thought each person can have its login to wiki, even if they are living together. Innab (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this to your talk page, where it belongs. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the deal. You and your boyfriend cannot edit on each other's behalves. That means you can't ask each other to come in and revert a page, or comment on a talk page in support, or anything like that. If you both want to be separate editors, that's fine - but in cases like this, where two accounts have been used on the same page, both accounts can be treated as a single entity. So if you revert twice and he reverts once, that's 3RR. I'm going to post this to his talk page as well so that he reads and understands the rules as well. As long as you both agree to follow these rules, then I'll unblock the other account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know about this before. I agree to follow this rule. I will talk to Yaroslav afternoon, I am sure he is also agree. Innab (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have talked to Yaroslav, he agree to the rule. Please unblock his account. Thanks. Innab (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You and an Invitation

Hi and thank you for your participation in the RfC on the Eckhart Tolle talk page. A comment that you made on that talk page is being referenced now in a discussion on The Power of Now talk page.[2] If you have a moment, could you drop by and make a comment? thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Can this sockpuppet investigation be reopened? I have had my suspicions regarding the users involved as they seem to exist purely to back each up in discussions and in determining consensus.

"Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bjmullan" ‎

Factocop (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that re-opening that case wouldn't be an attempt at getting back at O Fenian for opening a case on you? I'm not going to reopen the case, no. If you think you have 100% ironclad evidence and not just some tenuous attachments then that's a different story, but remember that you could end up shooting yourself in the foot. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser question

Hi. :) I've left a question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43 regarding checkuser practices. Not sure if you watchlist those, but figured I might as well notify you of the question in case not. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Threeafterthree

I am closing Threeafterthree as no need for a block since three weeks from last edit. Feel free still to block if you want, just getting another case out of the way. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the IP has been quiet for a few weeks now. If necessary we can revisit this issue. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The great sluggo

Thanks for merging to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevehhll. I have more pain, because I filed a case at WP:AE where the article is under general sanctions and the admin who protected the article then file a third sock puppet investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marvin1292. Unfortunately the climate change topic lost two of its most dedicated sock hunters to topic bans in the arbitration so those of us who are left are a bit clueless about this. --TS 22:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. I've merged it in as well, and I'll leave a note on AE about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi!. You blocked SameerJaved (talk · contribs). Do you think the new user PrageethMugunthan (talk · contribs) is the same person? Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. I've opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SameerJaved if you want to take a look. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an update - the account was confirmed as a sockpuppet, along with some others. They've all been blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArdeshirBozorg

I was going to add a similar episode at a related article in April, with a AsFarhang (talk · contribs) supporting ArdeshirBozorg. Looks like this may be a habit, although I still wonder if there are others. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but that account hasn't edited since April, so the logs for it would be long stale. (For reference, the logs are kept for three months.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, great minds think alike [3] (only saw your discussion here now, this was done independently). AsFarhang seems provable on the basis of a shared IP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Doctorlaw Sock

I'm not sure how to add people to a Sockpuppet investigation after it has been closed. User:WilliamByrnes (contribs) has just made his first edit in the same vein as User:Doctorlaw (case). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just added it to the list. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

non-promotional information error

Hello I believe you had deleted a portion of the article Mountain parkway Byway in error. The information was not promotional as you thought it was. DaleSr3 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "Tourists who don't believe an orchard can do well in the are in for a suprise." is inappropriate for a Wiki article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Rcool35 Sock puppet is back

Hello. You just blocked several IP addresses (starting with 76) of Rcool35 and you closed the case, (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rcool35/Archive) but he is back with IP 99.140.195.44 I am not sure how to proceed with the reporting process or if to open a new one. Thank you for your time and patience. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more block evasion than sockpuppetry, so I've blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711

the user keeps coming back in some form or the other (and for some reason editing the same stuff too), i was wondering per the request on the investigation page, can we permanently block his ip?Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't indefinitely block IPs. If his IP keeps changing then we may not be able to block it anyway. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711 Are we just supposed to keep sitting and waiting for the next sock block? this is an obvious case of not attempting to change behaviour, for which there is a quarantine/mentor period if memory serves.Lihaas (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

/* Sockpuppeting: SexyKick */

Honestly, I can't believe I'm in trouble for sock puppetry. I have never needed to use a sock puppet, and every controversial edit I ever made was under this name. I have confidence in my ability to get things done on my own, and I claim I am innocent. Is it possible to check IP logs or something? Is there a way for me to prove my innocence? Or is it something I just leave alone and hope doesn't bother with me in the future?

Thank you for any advice you can give me (other than don't do puppet, as I already know that, and will continue to not puppet.)--SexyKick 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

it's not confirmed 'til CU confirms

Actually it is. CUs do not link IPs to accounts unless the matter is that of LTA importance. The template used on that IP sock is not confirmed as in CU usage, but confirmed as in WP:DUCK usage. {{blockedsockpuppet}} is the same. It doesn't have be CU confirmed to be confirmed period. That aside, the SPI came back as confirmed based on behavioral. Sometimes CUs can't confirm and have to go off of behavioral, as some well-known abusers know how to use open proxies or other means of evasion that bar CU from linking accounts based solely on technical data.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, {{IPsock}} does not list the option parameter 'confirmed' as being CU-only. It is in regards to it being proven, which it has been.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, alright. But there's a clause in the privacy policy that says that CU won't link an IP to a username, so having a tag that says "This IP is confirmed to be used by (User)" when it's not an actual LTA concern would seem to be violating that. But it's not a big deal. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say confirmed. Confirmed is just a parameter, the tag says established. If it helps at all, I can link the evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your comments

Hey dude, For future reference; what's the appropriate way to deal with someone using multiple IPs to edit war? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I understand it. It's not sockpuppeting per se to use a home IP and a mobile IP, if that's what's going on here. The only place you can get into trouble for that is if you abuse that - that is, if one IP is blocked and you edit with the other; or if the first IP edit wars up to 3RR and then switches to the other to continue warring. In that case you can report it to ANEW or AIV or somewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Well in the case in question the two IPs do appear to have breached 3RR. I feel little awkward about going to ANEW though b/c I would essentially have to lodge both a accusation of sock puppetry and 3RR. Anyway, the IPs appear to have stopped editing. I'll come back to it if they startup again. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is that, if we were to check the logs for checkuser, we wouldn't be able to determine that they're the same person, given that the IPs are different, and other data would probably be different as well. So we'd have to go based on behavior - and as long as you could show that, then it'd be fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I understand the IP issue.

Given that two IPs from Dallas are reverting the same sentences from multiple articles in relatively rapid succession, I'm guessing there would be little doubt that these guys are the same from a behavioral POV.

Anyway, as I said, I'll re-approach this if and when I have to. NickCT (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Let me know if you need a hand. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Another duck

As another user enquired here (in an archived case), User:MorrisSar, whom you recently blocked, seems to have resurfaced as BishopofDoom. Do I need to file another sockpuppet investigation? - Dudesleeper talk 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've opened another case, mostly for just paperwork and to show a trail. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment re change by Ptrb

Hi, you just left a comment on revert here User_talk:Ptrb. I would like to inform you that I have merely been doing some smaller reorganizations ( as expressed in the comments to my changes ), I moved some content (incl. some external links) from one page to another, to remove some redundancies between those pages. I will undo your undo, because otherwise the content is simply lost. I hope you agree and understand. I will continue this now, if you disagree, pls. send me another message, but do keep in mind that since I was moving some content, a revert of my changes may cause losing content. Thanks. Ptrb (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, small changes for the better, are better than no change at all. Why is it not acceptable to have few smaller changes now, and once things have been merged and have become more clear, fix the other issues? Some smaller "refactorings", to be prepared for the bigger change so to say. Oh, and, currently there is content lost (pls see my comments), if you now forbid me to readd it, this will be forever. That can also not be the intention of this governance? or? Ptrb (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Look. The List article has been a long-term source of repeated linkspam - we're talking on the order of years. We don't need to make it worse. And the fact is, some of the stuff that you say will be lost forever should have been removed. Let's look at Pylint for example. There's no article for it, and the only thing on the list was an external link. Following our policy for standalone lists, it should not be included in the List article in its current form. If you want to go write a Pylint article and make sure it passes notability criteria, then go ahead - that would be preferable. But as it stands right now, it shouldn't be merged. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so much for my Newbie efforts. Since you now confirm that it is fine that those entries are lost, I guess we can just drop them. Ptrb (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Honestly, the rest of your edits on that page (as discussed below) were fine, so it was really just the inclusion of those links. But now that you know the policies, you can go on happily editing. I look forward to you merging the rest of those links, as it's something I've been meaning to do but just kept getting sidelined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have found each other :-), I have a further Newbie question. I browsed through several of the WIKI policies/guidelines, but did not find and answer to this. On this page List of tools for static code analysis, I put \[\[ link coding in some of the "section" headers (see C, C++, Java). Is this allowed, or is this forbidden. In this particular case I found it helpful. Ptrb (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those changes you made. They're fine, I think; it's nice to have a reference to what language we're talking about. The one thing you do want to avoid, though, is turning every mention of a language on a page into a reference. That's referred to as overlinking and it can be quite distracting. But changing the headers is fine by me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong, I have some further question on this topic of having "external" links vs. completeness of the provided data. Would it be OK to list tools, for which no WIKI pages exists yet, in one of the following ways? a) Either just have an entry holding the respective tool name (with short description), e.g. just "jnorm". b) Or, have the same entry, but even with the WIKI link mechanics, then pointing to nowhere (I see this for quite some terms in the WIKI), e.g. like jnorm. Is either a) or b) prefered? is on or both considered good, better or bad style? Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Based on what other editors on there have done, and given the tendency for IPs and other editors to use the page as linkspam, I think the preferred solution is to just not include any links until there's an article for them. WP:LSC (the notability criteria for standalone lists) says that you can redlink if you think that there will eventually be an article and just no one has gotten around to adding one, but in this case I don't think we'll see many of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. your change "no trademark signs in wiki"

Thanks, lot to learn here ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrb (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong , can you check the explanation that I have added here Category:SAP_(company) at "19:45, 1 November 2010"? For me this was a surprise , therefor I made it explicit in a comment . If you think this is/should-be known by all WIKI visitors (also the less technical), then feel free to remove it again. I (as IT professional) thought the weird sorting may have been a bug. Ptrb (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it 'cause it's not really necessary. Categories don't really have strict stipulations like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks. Although such an (at first sight) unsorted category, is kind of weird imo. Ptrb (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong, I have put 4-dashes between the different Q&A sections, to somehow not loose overview. I hope this is fine with you?

Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong, i have been merging Code reviewing software into Automated code review. A summary of this and more is given here Talk:Automated_code_review#Rename_or_merge_summary. I now assume that I have to replace the content of this page Code reviewing software with the following "statements" ( with extra whitespaces removed of course ). Can you confirm? Or is there more to it? Or would you rather do this yourself?

• # redirect [ [Automated code review] ]
• { { R from merge } }

Thanks (and further questions based on the summary will follow), Ptrb (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong, can you let me know (point me to) a tool that tells one which pages refer to a certain other page, e.g. Code reviewing software or Automated code review.

Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:HelloAnnyong, currently Perl::Critic gets redirected to Automated code review#Perl. I would like to redirect this to List of tools for static code analysis and also leave out the #Perl part, since List of tools for static code analysis may hold multiple (freeware and commercial) #Perl-anchors. OK with you?

Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, calm down for a bit and let me respond to these. (Honestly it's a bit distracting to have all of these pile up at once.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to see what pages link where, look on the left to where it says Toolbox and click on "What links here".
• On Code reviewing software, just edit the page and change the content to #REDIRECT [[Automated code review]]. You can include the R from merge if you want.
• Changing Perl::Critic is fine too.
• I've removed your section splitters because I found them to be particularly distracting. Whitespace and indentation (: at the start of the line) are preferable - on my talk page, at least. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

• Question about copying content/information from existing web-pages, to come to a WIKI article. I would like to take (1-to-1 if this is allowed), relevant parts of text from here http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
• For this Cobertura software , the following license exists http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html
• And I would like to write a small article on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cobertura&redirect=no
• Can you let me know, if considering the here involved licenses, it would be OK to copy/past relevants parts into WIKI? Or should I rather let it be, due to legal/licensing issues?
• Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM. The license you showed is for the project itself, not the text on the page; at the bottom it says the page is copyrighted to some guy. You really shouldn't copypaste text like that anyway; it's better to create your own content. But the real issue I see here is that of notability. In order for the article to survive, you need at least two secondary sources - things like newspaper or magazine articles. The product site itself, as well as blog posts and that sort of thing, are not enough to assert notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• One more question to this topic of moving/merging, and especially regarding text-fragments that hold "external links".
• I have (high-level) summarized the changes that I currently see for some more merging (no detailed reading done yet) here: Talk:Coding_conventions#Refactoring_coding_conventions_and_programming_style_articles. (I will wait for some reactions now.)
• One of the changes would be to move several dozens of external links from Programming style to Coding conventions, the change is proposed here: Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_3
• Now my question: would this change be allowed ? or would you also qualify this to be moving linkspammed text around, and thus forbid/reject it?
• Or, would it only be allowed if all these external links are converted into <ref> constructs?
• Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Your idea on refactoring the article seems fine enough, but I would wait a bit to see if people have input. Also while you're doing that, be careful not to add to the mess of original research that exists on all those pages.
  • Don't turn those external links into refs - you're not really citing them in this case, but rather linking to them. I guess it's okay to move them around. It's not really linkspam because it's directly relevant to the article but would be too much if the specific conventions were listed in the article itself. If anything, I would say put them into columns, which you can do by reading the documentation on the {{Columns-start}} template. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

suspected sockpuppet

Hi HelloAnnyong, you were involved in this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SameerJaved/Archive. I suspect the same user is back as Brillianco (talk · contribs). LibStar (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible; I've reopened the case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: your ANI post

I reviewed your post and I'm pretty confident in what I turned up in the check. If you would like another CU to review the info though, I would certainly understand. As for the legal stuff, I think they're blowing smoke, but that's just me. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. TNXMan 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I totally trust you on this one; hell, they even admitted they edit from the same IP. And you're probably right about the legal thing; I just wanted to get it out in the open rather than attempting to deal with it on my own. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame you. This is exactly the reason we don't tolerate legal threats - the chilling effect is disruptive to good editing. If anything more comes of it, let me know. Cheers! TNXMan 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well actually... I did receive a rather interesting email this morning. I forwarded it onto the functionaries, but maybe it's still pending? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked - it's been received and is being looked at. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know how a person can issue decrees that are validated by receipt of an email. In any case, the article is deleted, so I hope this is the last of it. TNXMan 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Supercomputtergeek

Hi, I saw that you blocked User:Supercomputtergeek as a puppet. It looks like one, and User talk:Watthehell33 may be another. But as I looked at the history of his other puppet names and edits, and considered how he pretended not know about the move button here User_talk:History2007#National_Supercomputing_Center, the behavior reminded me of our famous friend user:Bruce99999 aka User:Bruce99999 aka many, many more. Anyway, the way he was playing me on my talk page, just made me feel it may be User:Pionier again. I am not sure what the process is, but if the IP for Supercomputtergeek geolocates to North London, or just a little bit further north in the UK, then it is probably the same persistent fellow, who was also causing havoc on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Bruce99999 was getting more and more sophisticated. Anyway, I will leave it in your hands if you want to follow up on that, and if the geolocation check can even be performed. Anyway, I will leave it with you. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's actually three different sockmasters you're talking about: Supercomputtergeek == Polylepsis; Bruce99999; and Pionier, who may be him. The data on Bruce99999 is way out of date, so any checkuser would be turned down for being stale. But you may be right on Polylepsis, so I'll open a new case for you there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably just 2, given that Bruce99999 and Pionier were the same. And Polylepsis and Supercomputtergeek were also the same. The unknown is Watthehell33. The "signature" here is clever persistence and lots of time to waste - that characterized Bruce99999. And my guess is that over time he learned how to pick up new identities and continue. Anyway, if these all trace to North of London, that will clarify things. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you didn't see the case; the account was confirmed as a sock of Polylepsis. They've been blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I saw that now. But was he in North London? My bet: He will be back. We really need a program/bot to check for puppets, just takes too much effort to do it by hand. I started designing something, but have not finished it. The fact is that Wikipedia is wide open to "large amounts of small damage" by this type of people. A bot is really needed. I will start thinking about the design again. History2007 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser so I don't get to see the IP - and even if I did, it would violate the privacy policy to disclose that. The person who runs the CU check does occasionally block the underlying IP if it's possible, but if the user's IP jumps around then not much can be done. And for the record, I don't think that they're going to let you run a bot (that has admin powers, no less) whose sole purpose is blocking one user. Settle down; we'll take this one user at a time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot would just issue reports, so it should be no problem. And it will not just be for this user, but across Wikipages for many users. But I don't expect to work on it this year, maybe in 2011, but I do find this hand check approach quite inefficient. This fellow will be back. Old document is here: User:History2007/Content protection . History2007 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Trainee Clerkship?

Hey HelloAnnyong,

I'd be interested in participating more fully in SPI investigations. Per Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK#Trainee_clerks, would you have any suggestions as to who I might ask about becoming a Trainee Clerk?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No response... (sniff)...... I feel unloved. NickCT (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn! Sorry, I totally forgot about this thread. (I was a bit distracted with work when you posted it.) Um, I know there aren't many people without trainees who are active and willing to take on someone. But maybe check the people on the clerk list for active contribs and message someone that's been pretty active as of late? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice HelloAnnyong. I will do so. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

sock for blocking

here - Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It's been confirmed and blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello! I'm a new helper at Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and since you're a long time contributor, I have few newbie questions to ask. First, should the request be removed after the dispute is resolved or once a third opinion is provided? The template says to remove it, but what if the requester disagrees? And secondly, can multiple users respond to a third opinion request, or is it one editor per request? Thanks in advance, --hkr Laozi speak 23:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. The request should be removed after a 3O is provided. It'd be weird if a requester disagrees with removing it, and I'd be curious as to their motives. If they're unhappy with the opinion you've given, then point them to WP:RFC or MedCab or somewhere. And it's really supposed to be one opinion per request, but you're more than welcome to chime in on another page if you want. It might irk editors, though, to see someone coming in and giving an unsolicited opinion. I would approach that carefully. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, much appreciated.--hkr Laozi speak 03:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you need a hand with anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Re this: is it at least possible to check if the two active users are the same? Or is that beyond the scope of what we can check using that process? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there, but I'll reiterate it here. We only keep several months' worth of logs, so if an editor hasn't edited in that time, then we have no data on them. And then it's impossible to check if they're editing from the same IP as someone else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my comment was unintentionally ambiguous. I've clarified what I meant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Query, sock case Cmmmm

Any chance you could take admin action based on the strong behavioral evidence, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmmmm? The sock's disruption has spilled over into causing wastes of time for multiple Wikipedia editors, and has trigged now three different Miscellany for deletion discussions that would otherwise have been unnecessary. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It is  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry - work got super busy. Glad to see that got resolved, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pssst

Hello. You have a new message at Ponyo's talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you have eyes to see

why did you revert my editing to aisha? the preface article is full of insults and defamation. all the resources are quoted wrong. it's full of historical inaccuracy. isn't the purpose of editing re-correcting false statements. how is that considered to be vandalism? did you even read and analyze the content of the edit? check the original text and if you have the knowledge you'll see the need of adjustment. Just because a large portion is been edited doesn't necessarily means it has to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 06:43, November 9, 2010

We have rules here about accurate sourcing and original research, and everything you added to the article violates one or more of those rules. This isn't the place to push a point of view about Aisha. Multiple editors have reverted your edits, so I would recommend you read the policies before you try adding text like that again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Durk Pearson

Thank you for your assistance and input! You're right. It is a mess, but at least editors have found it. The article was a completely unsourced BLP a few days ago. Eudemis (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not my view of point

I am not pushing any personal review of events in aisha. the context of the article is what contains the hateful point of view from a certain sect that is contrary to establish history. But yet you assist in accusing me of vandalism .. again. I asked you the last time to check my editing by your self and see which writing does indeed have the historical biographical facts. I'm not violating any wiki rules of use. show me where in my editing did I contradict facts, facts! instead you permitted the context that contains hate and murder that didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have reverted your edits because you're pushing a point of view. Text like "And has thus paved the way for all who came after her in knowing the best ways to understand the Quran" isn't at all acceptable for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Edits to Wikipedia are supposed to be sourced to reliable sources, such as books. Aside from the fact that in this edit you removed a whole lot of good references and replaced them with your own interpretation, none of your edits thus far have been sourced at all. Read the appropriate policies - WP:RS, WP:V - and you'll see that your edits are violating policy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Text like "And has thus paved the way for all who came after her in knowing the best ways to understand the Quran" is a valid statement not my point of view. she did contribute significantly in the tafsir of the Quran in an extraordinary creative way. non what I mention was written from the top of my head it's all well preserved in the books of history and religion. text like "Upon entering the city, she ordered 600 Muslims beheaded, including 40 in the grand mosque" is explicitly show the un-encyclopedic push of an author's Ali Asghar Rizwi false narration of history which supports the view of the sect he belongs to ( shia' )which represent 10% of Islam. I'll provide in the next edit with the necessary sources you requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly more than welcome to try, but the text you're adding also violates our point of view rules. Again, multiple editors have agreed with me that the text you're adding is inappropriate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the master?

Shanghai Sally ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any malicious intent. As I said on the report, there isn't any overlap in the accounts' edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He first used the first account at Eretz Yisrael Shelanu and Efraim Karsh, then he put up a tag claiming he was on vacation, then he created a new account that he controlled through a proxy to continue the same edit war at Eretz Yisrael Shelanu and Efraim Karsh that he had done with the first account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and now the second account is blocked. I've warned Shanghai Sally about it. Unless it's something particularly egregious, an indef block for one sock in circumstances like this is particularly heavy handed. If the editor does it again then you can open a new case for that account and we'll deal with it as needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious change

Hi, I just hit the following changes. I searched the internet a bit, but to me this does not seem to make any sense. I dont want to accuse anybody, but would appreciate if you could check this, and judge whether this can be reverted. Or if you maybe even want to follow up on this in another way.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_software_development_philosophies&diff=prev&oldid=395751626
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_software_development_philosophies&diff=next&oldid=395751626

Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea what that is. Removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, pls see [4]. Seems that the same person put back the same topics. I as Newbie would rather not get into discussions/fights there. I'd appreciate if you could check again and maybe exchange few "words" with the editor. To me, it does not really sound like software development philosophies, and google imo confirmed this. Maybe in that list also, new entries should only be allowed if existing articles are avail. May also be that the editor has convincing argument backing his changes. Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

I've reverted it again, but I'm not going to keep doing all the work for you. In the future, revert things that are vandalism and leave a note on the user's talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Razorback216

Thank you for your quick action on User:Razorback216[5]. However, his sanction was relatively mild considering that this is not the first time that he’s engaged in this type of conduct. Please see [6] I urge you to consider a stronger sanction against the master sock.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No SPI case was filed that time, and no blocks were issued then either. I would say keep an eye on the situation and, if the editor continues to create accounts or to avoid scrutiny, then relist at SPI and we'll handle it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks but I got a feeling that I'm gonna have to do this all over again but next time it's going to be a bit harder because he'll learn from his amateurish mistakes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed the edits and edit summaries of the IPs in the previous case. No action was taken then because I never filed an SPI as Razorback216 stopped editing once the ANI was filed. I think it scared him a little and I let the matter go. However, the instant confirmed use of sockpuppetry by Razorback216 has given me cause to review the previous ANI. I am convinced now more than ever that those IPs were indeed socks of Razorback216 who made some very disturbing edits. These are the IPs in question.

• 69.110.29.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 69.110.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)
• 99.132.106.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Geo locate California)

Would it be possible to do a CU to determine whether they are in fact puppets of Razorback?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, no; CU won't tell you if an IP is used by an editor. (It's a violation of the privacy policy.) But besides that, none of those IPs have been used since July, so the data attached to them would be out of date. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NP. Thanks anyway.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Hey, please stop, i am trying to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T2c^ (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Above user has been dealt with. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Questioning neutrality

You kindly said to contact you if I have a query. The article Antipope Clement III is based entirely on orthodox Catholic sources, and reflects their views. I would like to flag it as not neutral, but I do not know how to do this. Thanks for any help. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you want {{POV}}. Read the instructions on the template page for info on how to use it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue

My article Mill Hill Old Railway Nature Reserve has been barred for copyright violation of the Wildweb page on the site. It is described as a close paraphrase, which does not seem to me correct. The first three paragraphs are my own words, the fourth a summary of the Wildweb page which copies some phrases and cites the page as my source. I could just delete the final paragraph. Your advice would be appreciated. Relevant pages are

http://wildweb.london.gov.uk/wildweb/PublicSiteViewFull.do?pictureno=1&siteid=6030

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mill_Hill_Old_Railway_Nature_Reserve&diff=396771388&oldid=396768582

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dudley_Miles

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

Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your article? Editors don't own articles. But besides that, a cursory glance at it does seem that really only the last paragraph the problem. Have you contacted the editor who added the copyvio tag to the article about it? That's probably the best way to start dealing with this. Tell him what you told me about the last paragraph and see what he thinks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. As to 'my article', it did not occur to me that it would be interpreted as claiming ownership. Of course editors do not own articles. I just meant the article I have created. I suggest that you could be more patient with neophytes who use the wrong word by mistake. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask a favour

Hi friend. I saw this edit of you. If you pay attention to the article history, you'll understand it was not completely deleted, by removed to its proper section. The first sentence, Mother of believer (Qiran 33.6) is the title of all Muhammad's wives, not only her, as it's observable in the template on the right hand of the article. About second sentence, it's not deleted, but moved to scholar section because she is narrator of only Sunni's hadith, and further more being hadith narrator is not mentioned in any other of narrators intro like umar, Abu Bakr, Ali, Uthman ibn Affan and .... . I didn't do any edit, as I was afraid to be accused by Sunni's users, so if you decide about it, it will be great. (Also pay attention the sentences doesn't have any referene). Thank in advance.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whicter595 and potential new sleeper

I would like to ask your advice regarding the above SPI. As you predicted, it appears that a 'sleeper' has emerged at Canary Wharf (User:Ragoon34 - it seems they have tried to resemble my username, although in this case I don't think that immitation can be regarded as a form of flattery). What is the protocol for investing this, can we add this user to the existing SPI (which is closed and awaiting archiving), or does a new SPI need to be opened? Many thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I relisted the case with the account attached. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey now

The person who made the article got to post a picture of a dog, why am I not able to post? Your arguement was I was promoting my pet, the other dog had to be someone's pet too. I added some information on other pieces to the article. I just don't see how you can justify one picture over the other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier Why not let people post pictures of dogs that fit the discription of the breed? I wouldn't have been bothered as much if someone wanted to post a picture for reference of their dog, but just to cut back just because I used the website for what it is used for is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysthyria (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how you shut my show down real quick. I don't even know what this twinkle thing is, my browser doesn't even support it. You can tell from my very craigslisty way of posting, my knowledge of this is quite limited. I think this whole wikipedia thing is going to turn corporate real quick like everything else. Tell me what I improperly sourced and I will fix it. The breed apperance is gotten from ukc, the health condition from the website I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysthyria (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A picture of your dog in sunglasses is not a good way of exemplifying a dog breed, and the picture we had there before was much better. Anyway, I've responded on your talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15