Jump to content

User talk:Dominic/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuff

Hey, the new DYK article is likely to get a complaint because of its short length. Also, email. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would give it a try. I know it's on the short end of the spectrum, but I hit a dead-end with sources, as it's a bit obscure. I got your email, but I've been doing a lot of CU requests today, and still have more things to reply to in my inbox, but I'm going to have to call it a night. I promise I'll look tomorrow. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lamour Desrances, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sara Larraín, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one

Hi, me again. My stalker has again returned, with this account: TruthHurts2008 (talk · contribs). I've already reverted his edits and blocked him, but if you could take care of the IP he's on, I'd be appreciative. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like his IP hasn't changed (good sign), the block just expired. I gave it a good long block this time, as it's clearly static and not shared. Let me know if he returns. Dmcdevit·t 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help :) Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Image:MaxvonBaden.jpeg

You deleted this image with the log entry 02:15, 10 July 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:MaxvonBaden.jpeg" ‎ (listed at Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons)). On April 6, the image was deleted from the commons since it did not have a clear statement of being in the public domain. Without seeing the image I can't be sure, but given some text I saw of the commons image in various Internet caches, it appears this is a 1919 photograph, which would be PD-US. In any case, it probably qualifies as fair use for Prince Maximilian of Baden. The only other photo I could find was this undated photograph that looks to be from the 1910s or 1920s based on the subject's age. Please let me know when you have restored the image so I can make the necessary edits to Prince Maximilian of Baden. Thank you. Addendum: See my parallel request on Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it. It looks like it may be the exact same image as the one you found. Dmcdevit·t 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian socks... you know who...

Marc KJH (talk · contribs)? Currently making a nuisance of himself by harassing other users, spurious RfCs and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Bonny. Askedvery12 (talk · contribs) is the only other account not yet blocked. I blocked the IPs he was on. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good to see my reflexes are still working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block uneffective?

Hi, I have no idea what happened, so for your information. Please give a look to these logs: [1] [2]. The block you placed seems not to work. --Aphaia (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hardblock!

The IP address 192.203.136.252 is registered to a public college library/computer lab! Hardblocking it like that so that even registered users can not edit from our computers was very mean and selfish and totally wrong! 192.203.136.252 is shared with at least 30,000+ other people!!!

User:Velebit again

Less of 2 months ago we have discussed about new puppets of this user (case user:Standshown ) and you have tell me that you still have this old data [3] but user Standshown has used new IP address. Now he has used old IP address so you can help in new case of this against this vandal [4]. --Rjecina (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StealBoy... again and again

Can you checkuser the latest two socks? Thanks. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing times are not standard for StealBoy, though. Perhaps he's on vacation outside of Australia... In any case, let me know about the underlying IPs since they may have vandalized other articles as anons. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extra spam: here's a few more:

Also found the following related IPs (I suppose they'll show on the checkuser but just in case...)

Is there any point at which it makes sense to file an abuse complaint with the ISP? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, that first account matches The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs); perhaps they are the same person as StealBoy (as it's the same city) or a copycat. The rest are all StealBoy on a new range, so I have extended the range block and we'll have to hope for the best. Unblocked socks that I just blocked and may need cleanup: Cbsmonst67666, Sleeping666666666666, Shortfilm676676. In general, I see a lot of abuse, but I long ago gave up on abuse reports to ISPs in all cases except for schools. However, there is no way to tell how an ISP like Exetel that we've never tried will respond. If you are willing to write up a good abuse report with links to diffs of vandalism and such, I can supplement it with actual IP evidence. Dmcdevit·t 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I can always try. I was under the impression that ISPs would be less than thrilled to know that whole ranges of their IPs are blocked because of one moron but from what you're saying they obviously don't care! Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of Schlock Mercenary character images

Good evening. I stole your second Laozi quote. I also noticed you removing all images from the SM characters article, which you explained as rectifying excessive use. My involvement with our image copyright rules have mostly been limited to hearing the horror stories, so is restoring a limited number of those images acceptable? If yes, how many?

Oh, sheesh. Sorry I seem to have missed this message at the time; been pretty busy lately. The short answer to your question is that fair use is only to be used when it is necessary and valuable in the article, since Wikipedia aims to be a free content project that anyone can reuse without restrictions. In practice, this means that, for example, you should only add fair use images where the subject is actually closely related to the article's subject, and where the image's subject is discussed critically in the article. If there is only a one-sentence or three-sentence reference in a large article, it probably does not merit a fair use image. If you have a dozen fair use image sin the same article, than you have almost certainly failed to use only necessary images that contribute to the article, and are probably just decorating at that point. Typically, if it is a characters article, I would say that you can usually find an image with all the characters together (like in the opening scene), and put that in the intro or infobox, and that should suffice, rather than trying to pepper the article with images for each character. I hope that helps. Dmcdevit·t 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

Just reminding you about that request I made on IRC last night - curious if anything came of it. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DWhiskaZ (talk · contribs) socks

I noticed your comment here.

While you are at it, can you also block these obvious socks of the same user:

and any related accounts. Let me know if you want me to file a formal RFCU instead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:STREUTH MARTINET

Could you take a look at this unblock request please? The user is blocked because of one of your checkuser blocks. Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the Jim Henson studio lot is blocked is a good one, as it is where the banned user ColScott (talk · contribs) edits from. As one of the previous sockpuppets was StreuthPuppet (talk · contribs), I assume this new account is likely to be ColScott again. Dmcdevit·t 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fathi fathi gotlek ibne arkadaşım naber. sait faik abasıyanık değmesin yağlı boyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.230.193 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandlisim and Personal Attacks

A user named tripjohnson in vandalizing and making personal attacks. I personally think his ip number should be suspended, but that is not up to me. We have had disagreements on articles but he has taken it too far. He undos most edits I make now (doens't matter what they are). He also made this comment to another user, I guess it was deleted or something but it can still be seen on past version of the American Revolutionary War talk page.

Lying? Where the hell did I lie in there? I wrote that line before I even heard of the site. Do NOT accuse me of lying with no evidence, you hypocritical twat.

Here is the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206064346&oldid=206016865

Report me, you can't block me for editing. It was you two who began this whole mess, not me. Oh and, learn to spell and use proper grammar before you actually make this complaint. It was Red and Plains who began this whole vandalism mess, by reverting articles without discussion, and you two have the cheek to call me a vandal! Damn hypocrites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206017577&oldid=206016865

It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Harlem_Heights

Damn hypocrites. With you two it appears those who don't get a boner over the United States and those who disagree with them are wrong. I suppose you two are right and everybody else is wrong?


== http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206091601&oldid=206017743 Then he re-wrote his sentence

Lying? Where the hell did I lie in there? I wrote that line before I even heard of the site. Do NOT accuse me of lying with no evidence, you hypocritical twat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolutionary_War&diff=206091601&oldid=206054761 The furthest I went was to said he lied to me and called him stubborn. I would say his surpasses mine.I have no power in this, but if you look back onto his contributions you can see how many times he has ,for no reason. undone my edits. Please contact me ASAP. Thank you. (Red4tribe (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)) ==[reply]

Thank you...

...for fixing my talk page. It's bad enough to be called stupid, or an idiot, but a stupid idiot? Now, that's going too far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who

New StealBoy accounts, new IP range (whois suggests the latest spree was done from his workplace). As usual, let me know if you find additional IPs and accounts to clean up after. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked an account, but it had no edits yet. Looks like that was all; they were all on that one IP. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq

As the initiator of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000, I believe you might be interested in seeing this discussion: WP:AN/I#WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by ethnic pressure group. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

See User talk:HolokittyNX. I must say, I myself wonder about the timing of this block. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing strange about it. When I find an account on open proxies who is clearly a sockpuppet, having immediately begun editing wikiproject and policy pages, and is making disruptive edits to pedophilia-related page, then I block it. Dmcdevit·t 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiros10

Hello. Stjimmy61892 is a friend of mine who created his account at my house. he is not my sock. And I am not a sockpuppeteer.
It was a mistake to tell my friends about wikipedia. I told them that if they wanted to create usernames, they should. It is my fault for not knowing that they would vandalize under my name. Hear me out. I really apologize on behalf of them.

♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC):([reply]

I can vouch for this. He is Shapiros10, and I am Stjimmy61892, and we're two different people, even though we have similar personalities, which really doesn't matter. I don't understand why this had to lead to his account being deleted. This really is stupid. I have just confirmed i am not his sock, and would like you to put back his account. Thank you.Stjimmy61892 16:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs)
Er, I wasn't even the one that made the block. I supplied the technical evidence, using CheckUser. According the the deletion log, his user pages were deleted by request. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either way, I got in touch with him, and I didn't have all the info for why he got deleted, and it wasn't for sock puppeteering.Stjimmy61892 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjimmy61892 (talk • contribs)

User:VigilancePrime unblocked by User:Carnildo

FYI, VigilancePrime has been unblocked by Carnildo. It doesn't look like Carnildo talked to you about it. Its my understanding that self-professed pedophilia advocates (including those using self-made girllover userboxes) are blocked on principle. Carnildo appears to disagree. Avruch T 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1

Following on from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1 I have a feeling Special:Contributions/Zimbian may also be another new user with Tor? I don't want to add a check user since it is unclear who is doing this but similarly I don't want to add extra comments to Tony's check user. Fnagaton 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same guy. I blocked the Tor proxies. Dmcdevit·t 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is this Special:Contributions/Tarapotysk another one? Fnagaton 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, blocked again. Dmcdevit·t 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to trouble you again but another account has appeared who is intent on adding personal attacks and editing in the same places like MOSNUM. I've notified User:zzuuzz but the admin may be asleep at the moment. Fnagaton 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier on User:Jaakobou tried to help by mediating with the new user account regarding abuse of my personal info and then this edit appears on Jaakobou's user page. Fnagaton 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The account is not on Tor, but is actually this guy: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x. I have oversighted the personal information and blocked that Tor node. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) Fnagaton 07:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBC

Hi, probably a bit of both to be honest - I'm not pretending it's a good article or anything, but the thing is that it's used at the moment on several articles that link from "TBC" or suchlike in tables, and having it on Wiktionary wouldn't be as useful in that respect. The article isn't really a dictionary definition, either. Once it's been transwikied, perhaps it could be put up for AFD to get a general consensus? Bob talk 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One year on...

Given that User:Poetlister's now unblocked, as the blocking admin do you have any objection to my unblocking Taxwoman? They're certainly not the same person whatever checkuser might say; it's now been a year so she's certainly had time to learn her lesson for any wrongdoing she might have done; and whatever you might think of the subject matter she used to work on, she did do a good job maintaining a number of articles which a lot of people steered clear of. I've discussed it with her off-wiki and she'd like to come back; obviously, if she starts abusing anything she could always be reblocked. — iridescent 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is not mine, or mine to undo; it is an ArbCom ban. I have thought for a while now that is was a mistake for me to have carried out the ArbCom ban as one of the CheckUsers on the case (it wasn't an issue I considered until after), because there is still confusion over that. Having said that, while I support Poetlister's unblock based on good behavior, I think you may have misread the situation. The accounts are all considered one person with sockpuppets by ArbCom; they have just given Poetlister a second chance because of her good work on Wikiquote, where she is even a bureaucrat, and trusted by the community. You will have to take it up with ArbCom, but be forewarned that the evidence has been reviewed by ArbCom ad nauseam over the months since the ban. Dmcdevit·t 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. The unblock was done without regard to the evidence. It was based on the high quality of Poetlister's contributions on other Projects as well as the length of time since the original block (as you know ArbCom generally only does one year bans). FloNight♥♥♥ 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it'll need to go via arbcom - was just sounding out the idea, since if you were opposed Arbcom would almost certainly oppose. FWIW I'm still not convinced PL and TW are the same person (I'm neutral on whether either was also Runcorn) - I don't see why a sockpuppeteer would continue maintaining the two SPA identities for so long and in so many places (from TW's spanking wiki to WR) after the block. In this age of multi-user wifi connections etc, checkuser alone doesn't constitute evidence.
Given the current situation, I don't think now's the time to be bothering Arbcom with anything non-urgent, but once the dust has settled I may re-raise the matter yet again as it does seem silly to keep someone blocked under the circumstances (even if they are the same person, I can't imagine any misbehaviour given that they'll probably be the most watched editors on the entire system) — iridescent 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have to admit the contradiction in saying "checkuser alone doesn't constitute evidence" and then at the same time "I can't imagine any misbehaviour given that they'll probably be the most watched editors on the entire system)." If CheckUser is useless to detect sockpuppets, surely it's worse at stopping them. :-) But it is neither. I agree that CheckUser is an imperfect tool. We can't yet test the DNA or fingerprint of the user editing ;-). (Thankfully.) Even the clearest case of CheckUser matches could be two people physically at the same computer (though, being common sensical about it, if you throw out all CU evidence on that premise, you'll do more harm than good). I have been a CheckUser since just about the beginning and seen a lot. "CheckUser evidence" can mean many things. Sometimes it means little, and an overall case is still not conclusive. Sometimes it is very conclusive. If something could be explained away by something as simple as "multi-user wifi connections," believe me, we've seen it all before, and wouldn't consider it conclusive. This is why we have CheckUsers who are well-versed in the intricacies of CheckUser data, to interpret results.

This case has probably been the most reviewed in memory. I remember back in the innocent days of 2007; I think this was the first real case of admin sockpuppetry and and summary ban of an admin we'd had. It was not taken lightly. Over the many months, over half a dozen CheckUsers, at least, including the ones on ArbCom at the time of the decision have looked at the case and confirmed the findings. What I think we need right now is to gracefully welcome Poetlister back into the community, while avoiding making her personal case a political issue to pursue against ArbCom (not an accusation against you, just a general hope based on some recent comments). Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dmcdevit. Let me know when you're completely fed up of doing these checkusers for me but here's an interesting one. CoolMattew8888 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has all the look and feel of StealBoy but a few months ago CoolMattew6666 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Lyle123. Not that it really matters much... Still the 8888 one was active yesterday so it likely came with a flood of new socks and if you can let me know who they were, I'll go and clean up their mess. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolMattew8888 is in the same city as StealBoy, so it's likely him, though it's on a different ISP now. There are no other edits from other accounts on the IP, though; it may be too dynamic to catch them. I looked at CoolMattew6666, but it's too old to check. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

We have placed oodles of fake, inaccurate, or otherwise false images, text, and other media here. The ironic thing is that there are morons who don't realize it is bogus and they defend it to the hilt getting poor schmucks banned which makes people hate Wikipedia. This is a good thing as we are going to continue to do it until Wikipedia goes away. We enjoy wasting people's time. It is quite fun. That will make things better.

Ko Jumong unblocked

You blocked this user in late 2006 indefinitely. I have unblocked now per a series of requests in which I felt s/he sincerely understood what had caused the problem, s/he'd been blocked long enough for whatever they did do and that in any event three edits was rather minimal to brand someone a troll and block them indefinitely. Plus s/he's indicated some specific positive contributions they'd like to make. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Republic

You moved the "Republic of Formosa" article to "Taiwan Republic". On what did you base this decision? In the historical context, if any English name was used it was most likely "Republic of Formosa" and in modern usage the state is usually called "Republic of Taiwan". Do you have a source that calls it "Taiwan Republic"?Readin (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the common name for it in scholarship, except for some references to it as the "Republic of Taiwan" due to conflation with the modern country. I have in front of me an article by Harry Lamley ("A Short-live Republic and War, 1895: Taiwan's Resistance Against Japan"), who has written a lot on the subject, which starts with "The rise of the Taiwan Republic and the ensuing war of resistance were..." Try simply Googling "1895 "Taiwan Republic"" vs. "1895 "Republic of Taiwan"" vs. "1895 "Republic of Formosa""—the results are even more striking with Google Scholar. Dmcdevit·t 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue

This user was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Voice of Britain. East.718 says this was based on a checkuser you ran. Could you confirm this? I would decline the request but I feel that checkuser results need to be explicitly stated on-Wiki for clarity when they're being relied on. Thanks. Mangojuicetalk 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user claims to be a coworker of a Voice of Britain sock who was innocent. A bit convoluted, but what it boils down to is that they are a direct IP match with and making similar child sexuality-related edits as Voice of Britain (Farenhorst). Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the IP, by any chance, a proxy? Mangojuicetalk 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is, though the accounts both showing up on it is no coincidence even then. Dmcdevit·t 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your kind words on my RFA. I'm told we might have some interests in common...I'll keep my eyes open for your contributions! -Pete (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

216.17.145.62

You blocked as a Tor node almost a year ago. A user requesting unblock says it is not a Tor node anymore. Can you look into this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; he's been unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help requested

I saw that you are a checkuser. I need your help.

I was going to edit some medical articles but I didn't want people to think that I am a convict (having some criminal agenda) or a drug company (trying to promote a medicine or even a class of drug). That's why I wanted some sort of confirmation that I am a doctor. Someone mentioned that an IP is not 100% proof but it at least proves that I am writing from a private medical office and not a prison or drug company.

Some people were afraid that I would insist that my opinion is the only right opinion because I'm a doctor. That is not my intention or the Wikipedia way. However, confirmation would rest any fears that I am a criminal or a drug salesman.

Therefore, would you look into my IP and state...

Doctor Wikipedian states that he is a doctor. His IP confirms that he edits from a medical office. (Preferred response)

or

Doctor Wikipedian may be a convict because he is editing from a prison.

or

Doctor Wikipedian may be a student or teacher because he is editing from a small school.

or

Doctor Wikipedian may be a pharmaceutical company employee because he is editing from a corporate IP.

or

Doctor Wikipedian may be a government employee because he is editing from a government IP.

Please help. I have many good ideas for Wikipedia and have seen some wrong information (clearly wrong, not just my opinion). I need some some of confirmation before I am willing to write in Wikipedia. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please go ahead and make your edits, providing reliable sources for the changes. Nobody is going to ask for (or accept) credentials as an author. What everyone is looking for, and relies upon, is that the information is properly cited and verifiable. You are strongly encouraged to just jump in and start editing.  Frank  |  talk  21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your invitation, Frank. However, I am still awaiting the dmcdevit's answer. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some new socks

man... I should just ask to be a checkuser and do this shit myself... Anyways: latest sock of StealBoy CoolMattew9999999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) apparently on this IP 124.183.8.148 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). As usual, let me know if some more cleanup needs to be done. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that

Here's to hoping you'll find the new IP range to block. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem isn't so much that he's on new IPs (the edits from 61.* were small; probably just a public computer). These all mostly edited from the blocked IP range, but thy are sleepers so he got around the anon. block. Essentially, he can keep doing that until he runs out of sleepers. GogsWhere7666 is the only undiscovered sock I blocked. Dmcdevit·t 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunholm?

Dmcdevit, you were the checkuser on the most recent incarnations of Sunholm/Sunfazer back in February. I was wondering if you'd take a look at 1qx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Kelsington (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). In the past, 1qx claimed to be a friend of Solumeiras (which led to this checkuser result). Now there's this username change request. 1qx wants SunStar Net renamed so that Kelsington can use it. Something seems incredibly fishy here to me and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look.

1qx wasn't really an active user until lately. What I do find odd is that he did show up on February 19, 7 days after the SunStar Net/Solumeiras blocks. You'll also probably want to look at the deleted history of Wikipedia:Spent convictions. Basically it seems to be saying "If I ever run for RFA, I shouldn't have to reveal that I am a sockpuppet of banned users." Other edits that stand out include MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Messagebox_suggestion (related to the obsession with templates and changes of them) and requests for unprotection of pages that are constant vandalism targets.

Any chance you could look into this? I'd appreciate it, Metros (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is 82.42.237.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which looks pretty connected to SunStar/others. The user says that the vandals are off of the IP address and there are no connections to the vandals whatsoever using it. However, you'll see at http:// sunstarnet.quotaless.com/testwiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/82.42.237.84, that this is being used at the "sunstarnet" wiki run by Kelsington which (they say) has absolutely, positively, no connection to any previous users known as Sunstar net at Wikipedia. And that the vandal here just happened to steal the idea for that account off of Kelsington. At this point, I think just a WP:DUCK block is in order. What do you think? Metros (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the blocks. I have also converted that IP's anon. block to a hardblock, since he has been editing through the block all this time. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You got mail :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

220.255.7.239

Hey, sorry to bother you but I just need to ask you about the block on 220.255.7.239. You blocked it last month as a proxy. Today on unblock-en-l we had a request for account creation from a fellow who was caught in one of Ryulong's anon only range blocks - 220.255.7.0/24. I've created his account User:Neiljhk and he says he was able to make two edits but when he went to edit the reference section he was blocked by your block on 220.255.7.239. Can the block on this IP can be softened? Thanks Dmc. Sarah 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was a Tor node used by a banned troll only a little while ago. I would prefer to ask the user to edit through their regular internet connection instead of Tor, rather than consider changing the block. If he is claiming that he is not proxying to that IP, but it's his regular ISP, then that's a different matter entirely, and it's likely it's just a dynamic range and he no longer has the IP by now anyway (but if not, we can work with him to make sure he can edit). Dmcdevit·t 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Neiljhk never replied to my request for more information about his set up but his account made a couple more edits two days later and the address seems to have rotated to someone else now. I've created the account User:Paulsher for this new fellow who emailed unblock-en-l but he is basically in the same situation as Neiljhk and unable to edit because of the block on 220.255.7.239. I asked him to email you himself so that he can answer your questions about his connection and hopefully find a solution. I hope that's okay. Thank you for your help, much appreciated. Sarah 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I heard you got Grawped. Very sorry to hear that. BTW, I was given a 2nd chance. I apologize for all harm commited. We cool? Shapiros10 WuzHere  00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DavidYork71?

MBelleK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Khoikhoi 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75.37.10.82

They are requesting unblock. You have them as part of a range. Is this one of the ones that came up? Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New socks

Some new sock accounts for you to have fun with. Hope you can identify and block some underlying IP range. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VigilancePrime

This user has requested an unblock for his alternate account at HyperVigilancePrime. The user professes ignorance as to the reasoning behind the block, and would like more detail. As I am unfamiliar with the situation, I thought I'd ping you as one of the original blocking admins. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser autoblock

User talk:Stormo Shauno is requesting unblock. If you could review this, it would be appreciated. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tomasulo

Did you ever email the U. Michigan people about pictures of his final talk? Raul654 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My friend is back

Hi, Dmcdevit. My old pal is back, with Parsecboy's mom has cancer, Ha ha! (talk · contribs) and Parsecboy's mom is a baldy bitch (talk · contribs). Can you check the IP being used and block if necessary? Thanks for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Dmcdevit. I've been made aware of another Jetwave sock, Parsecboy's moms clitoris (talk · contribs). I've blocked him, but can you check the IP being used and block it as necessary? Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Hi, Dmcdevit. I'm not sure how and why my account yuanshangcao has been blocked from uploading files. I am a new user and i am using a home secure connection, so i am not sure why it is considered an open proxy server. Please, if you could check and see if my account can be unblocked? Thank you! Yuanshangcao (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try using https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ I also have been blocked as the IP is idenified as a zombie computer. Not much we can do anything. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom decision

In February 2006, I began a wikibreak that lasted 15 months. When I returned, I found this decision had been made in my absence, by you and others. While I have worked around this ban since then, I have recently been given two blocks by administrators who believe your reference to the "Northern Ireland conflict" (which I took to refer to the Troubles) also includes events as far back as the 1920s during the Irish War for Independence, to my mind a very liberal interpretation of the phrase you used. Can you clarify which conflict you were referring to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have email!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked ... 64.22.64.0/18

Did all 16384+/- addresses in this range offend you, that you felt it needful to block them?

Please note that the block summary >>blocked "64.22.64.0/18 (Talk)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 6 months ‎ (Global Net Access hosting company)<< is perhaps misleading, as editing is blocked (at least for me, personally, lucky thing that I am) rather than merely acc't creation.

Lastly, the block message is baffling in and of itself: >>... disabled by Dmcdevit for the following reason(s): Global Net Access hosting company<<

While the act and quality of existence may be blockable - I haven't boned up on the regs in a while - this was not helpful to me, as an end-user, in my efforts to improve Wikipedia.

All that snark aside, I really like your userpage, and am sorry we had to meet like this. There might be very good history warranting this block, but my point is, it's opaque. Obfuscated. Arcane. Confused.

Thanks for your time, and for working to make Wikipedia a better place. No snark.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-03-22 20:28Z

I don't mean to be cryptic. Hosting companies allow editors to cheaply change their IP and edit remotely and anonymously from the company's IP range, much like an open proxy. Indeed, such ranges typically are infested with open proxies, as well. The IP range is blocked from editing because it was involved in some sort of abuse that brought it to my attention. Typically, as is hopefully the case here, the range is not the primary internet connection for the editors who might use it, since it is used only for work. If this is major problem, let me know what your situation is and I'll rethink the block. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic. I should have included that in the list.
I respectfully submit that, even given the vast number of addresses available in the ipv4 schema, blocking 64K addresses requires more transparency than is manifest here. An individual block would be well-served by more transparency.
Still, thanks for reading, and for your well-elucidated explanation of your general reasoning. I don't think it's specific enough ("Why is this giraffe sick?" "Giraffes are a long-necked bipedal mammal indigenous ...") but I can't fault you for lack of responsiveness.
Hoping to converse further,
—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-03-24 07:28Z
Well, 64,000 IP addresses does not mean 64,000 Wikipedia editors, especially as this is a hosting company, not a regular ISP. In fact, it could mean less than 100 edits every few months. In this case, I checked the amount of traffic coming in before the block, and found it to be minimal enough. The block was done as a result of a CheckUser investigation, not simply on a whim, and the potential collateral was checked using CheckUser too. I could look up what the abuse was (likely some banned user or troll) but it wouldn't really matter since that part isn't in dispute, I don't think. If you really want to I can, of course. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the block is pretty wide, could you at least split it into smaller ones. You blocked me as well, I don't generally edit, but ocasionaly fix stuff. So it's pretty upsetting. The .edu thing is simply a free subdomain obtained from http://afraid.org . Thanks Mineralè (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note: I copied this section here from archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineralè (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soda

Dmcdevit,

It has been nearly three years since I first told you about the dangers of drinking soft drinks. Has the thought sank in yet? If it hasn't, I think you better be saying your prayers because I can envision seeing you on your deathbed, saying I wish I had listened to this guy on wikipedia. Please do not let that happen to you. You have every power to stay healthy. Just quit drinking it and quit enriching Big Soda while he is slowly killing you.

--- Jiff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.0.97 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on Supervolcano

Hello -- I understand you are a helpful, if busy, administrator who sometimes takes an interest in history articles. I have recently had a difficult time on Supervolcano with an editor named User:‎Black Tusk. We appear to disagree on the term "historic time". When he deleted a small portion of the article - I reverted. Then he reverted and requested a source. I restored and found a source and an ex link summary and included it in the article. He responded by reverting "AGAIN" and protecting (evidently) the page. I sense a little bit of ownership - perhaps? I have left a message on the talk page. If you have time, could you chime in? Thank you. Just me! (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we have managed to resolve our dispute. Sorry to disturb you. Just me! (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago

Could you allow me to re-record the Chicago article and update your sound file? :) Thanks .:davumaya:. 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cunanan.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Cunanan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

CecilK (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P-38 Can Opener.jpg

Hi. It seems that you deleted Image:P-38 Can Opener.jpg from en.wiki in favour of the Commons copy without verifying that all the information had been correctly transfered. Could you please go through the the original info at Special:Undelete/Image:P-38 Can Opener.jpg and transfer the missing info to the Commons image page. Unless the info is added the image will probably have to be deleted as missing essential source and/or author information. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 00:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor that you blocked as an open proxy claims to have reformed and requests unblock

An IP editor, 83.104.180.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has shown up at Category:Requests for unblock who has been hit by your block of an open proxy of 15 June 2007. I also left a message at WT:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, WT:OP took care of it quicker than I expected. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need checkuser input

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio

Hi there, do you by any chance know how to create an audio version of the Michael Jackson article, much like the Obama article. Are there any volunteers who would be prepared to use their voice? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockmaster

Hi, Dmcdevit.
Remember your discussion User_talk:Dmcdevit/Archive15#Regarding_User:Velebit?.

Almost all these usernames above are the variations of the name of the Ante Perkovic. Some of these variations are changed so that name gets into pejorative form. User:Ante Perkovic, the admin on hr.wiki, is the target of these attacks.
I strongly suspect because of this message (from Sep 27, 2007) of the banned user:Visca el barca on the talkpage of user Ante Perkovic [5]
("Well, well, well if it isnt little Ante Pederkovic who is back", that this is the work of the same person.
So, I believe, here's:

Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question

Does the phrase "flashbang" mean anything to you? --Resplendent (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikindx

Can you please undelete wikindx (at least to user space)? I didn't see the old article, but I don't know why CSD A7 would apply--as the criteria explicitly states that it "applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on" (emphasis mine). It could be that the article needs major work, but I would think that some article could be written on this subject. This request is based on an email inquiry to why I commented wikindx out of Comparison of reference management software. --Karnesky (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki of Audio Articles (User:Tmalmjursson / Iceflow)

Hi Dmcdevit. I wonder if you can help me? I have been looking back through some of the audio articles I created under my old Username, Tmalmjursson, and I have noticed that a few of them have been Transwikied, and that apparently, you have authorised this. Would you please tell me why I was not notified that this would be undertaken, or is it not actually necessary to tell someone you are doing this? Is it a case of it simply gets done? Thanks for your help! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Commons ok

Template:Commons ok has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Philly jawn (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hip Hooray

Hi. I just noticed this article was deleted. I don't recall having received any notification that a prod had been placed on the article and I would have contested the prod as inaccurate, given that IMHO the contents of the article (which was a very short stub, but one with masses of potential for growth) already way exceeded a dictionary definition. I'd be grateful if you'd review. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Seems you've stopped editing. I'll run by the deleting admin. If you come by and see this, say hello! --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you weren't informed of the PROD tag being placed; it is usually a courtesy to do that. I'd be happy to restore the article though, if you'd like. Just let me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Happy for it to go to AfD if you're concerned about it. --Dweller (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. I won't be AFDing it, as I'm not the one who wanted it deleted - that would be Dmcdevit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all great, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration/Homeopathy

Hello Dmcdevit:

I have a question about: "11:58, May 26, 2008 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence" ‎ (Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.))"

It seems that the Evidence page is still (Sept 25/08) hidden as it is a redlink. Is it available at another location?

I have not seen the page so I do not know what was said. However, I can make a good guess as to the subject.

Can you suggest anyone I can turn to for a frank discussion about this case? I have been interested in the Homeopathy discussions for about a year, so this is not just a matter of me becoming nosy about the situation.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Hello Dmcdevit,

recently you have blocked the IP range 82.208.0.0/18 because it is believed that this range is an open-proxy range. This is the IP block of the Casablanca Int. Czech internet service provider. Casablanca Int. provides multiple types of service:

  • web hosting and server housing in their datacentres
  • connectivity to other internet service subproviders

It might be possible that someone has misused the servers hosted somewhere in the cloud of IPs (16384 in total), however I don't think that blocking the range in full is correct. I would suggest to block just sub-ranges of IPs that have vandalised Wikipedia in the past.

If you want to and can provide these informations (when the vandalism occured, from which IP address/es) to me and I can try to contact Casablanca Int. directly to request an action to be taken against the abusers. That might be the best for the community. My contact e-mail is radek AT zajic.v.pytli.cz

Hopefully we can work this out the best way for both Wikipedia and the users/contributors.

Thanks and regards, ZajDee (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocking of 70.86.0.0/16

You blocked an entire /16 block! OMG! I have server at The Planet. A tiny 8 block of IPs there. IPs are giving out in direct allocations so we shouldn't be banning an entire ISP. None of my ips are "open proxy - web hosting company ThePlanet.com". This claim would be better to do on a per server/block basis like the rest of the web. I wouldn't mind running a scan for open proxies on this netblock to give you a specific list and would keep it up to date if you want. I use my server to evade my cooperate proxy (ssh tunnel to a localhost bound squid instance) so that I can edit from work without showing it coming from my company and their silly filters won't catch me if edit something with vandalized crap with some naughty word on the page. This block severally hampers that.

Also I have friends in China that buy servers at the planet as well to put up their own private encrypted gateways to evade the great firewall. What are the best steps to appeal this ban?? Blocking the worlds largest managed server ISP in the world is awful (now that EV1 and The Planet have merged beating out GoDaddy). As both a long time editor, former bot runner, and vandal killer, I beg you to reconsider this one. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 07:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Happy New Year!

Dear Dmcdevit,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Dominic/Archive 23's Day!

User:Dominic/Archive 23 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Dominic/Archive 23's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dominic/Archive 23!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English spellings

I was interested by a remark you make in an AfD... how does Canadian English spelling vary from the other dialects?--S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually it is described as halfway between American (tire, organize, encyclopedia) and British (flavour, metre, offence), but I'm not sure if that's because of modern American influence, or just because Canada and the US both developed side-by-side and the changes that happened in the spellings occurred in both regions contemporaneously. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting. Organize would be a normal English English variant, but the other two sound definitely American to me! So Canadian is a distinct dialect in terms of spelling too. Thank you--I've learned something.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I was under the impression that "organise" would be normal in the UK. But my point there was that generally Canada uses the American "-ize" rather than the UK "-ise." Dmcdevit·t 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"-ize" is a bit old-fashioned here. Shakespeare or Jane Austen would've used -ize most of the time. Nowadays, -ise is becoming more common but you do still see -ize in modern documents. (I love trivia like this; what can I say? I'm a language nerd.) --S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Language nerds are always invited to join Wiktionary. I think there is a job opening fitting someone of your description. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh list of Slavic languages

While there is a wiktionary swadesh list of Slavic Languages, the scope of the wikipedia article that you deleted is a bit more encyclopedic as prose to describe the changes between proto-slavic and its daughter languages is part of the article's content and scope. I'm a bit irked at your deletion because it seems as though you based your decision wholly on the title and not on content in the article or the discussion page, the latter of which clearly states the goals of the article even if they haven't been fully realized. I ask that you restore the article. If you still truly believe that the article should be deleted, then the proper action is to nominate it for deletion. Let the community make that decision. Thank you for your time. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't intended to do anything controversial here. I just noticed the article, and knew the other dozen or so Swadesh lists were transwikied and deleted, and saw the Slavic languages appendix at Wiktionary, and I assumed that this one had simply been missed when the others were deleted. I should have looked more closely at the content of the two appendices. I'll be sure and read the talk page to understand it better before doing anything else. :-) Dmcdevit·t 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominic/Archive_23&oldid=1143359772"