User talk:Mike V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my Talk Page!

Symbol support vote.svg
You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite! I'll try to reply where the conversation has started. That way it keeps things in one place. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imveracious[edit]

Thanks very much for your assistance here, Mike. I actually had technical follow-up questions but didn't want to clutter the SPI with them. You seem more knowledgeable about the technical aspects than I am. First, could you explain how you can see what ports the IPs use? Second, can you explain the significance of those ports and how you can tell they're "open"? Appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I use a program called nmap that performs a portscan. Once a scan on an IP or an IP range is complete, it provides a readout providing the ports that it has detected, the status of the ports (open, filtered, closed) and what kind of port it is (http, https, tcp, ssh, smtp, and a bunch more). If I find a port that's commonly used as a proxy, I'll attempt to access a website through the proxy using the program wget. If I successfully connect and retrieve content, then I know someone can use it to access Wikipedia and it can be blocked. Mike VTalk 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I downloaded Nmap and ran it. Rather spiffy little thing. It showed the open ports. How do you know that a particular port is "commonly used as a proxy"? I glanced at our article about http, and it looked like 80 and 443 were "normal" ports, but I didn't read it carefully. I didn't download wget because I believe it has to be run from a command line prompt (I use Windows 7), and I wasn't keen on that. Is there another way to "connect and retrieve content"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
When I run checks, the most common proxy ports I see are 80, 443, 1080, and 8080. You'll usually want to keep an eye out for HTTP, HTTPS, or SOCKS ports during your port scan. I do run both nmap and wget as a command line prompt. If that's not for you, you can configure your browser through your preferences to use the proxy IP and port. When you try to access a website be conscious of which websites you try to access, especially if you have a browser that autofills your login credentials. Mike VTalk 23:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, you're going increasingly over my head. I think I need a whatever for dummies book on these subjects. I'm running nmap as a Windows program; works fine. I'm not sure how to set my browser up the way you suggest (I use the latest version of Firefox) and don't even know what "autofills your login credentials" means. :-) Despite all appearances, I am more technically savvy than the average user, and my brain works like a bit like a computer (small steps), but I know less about http protocols and all the related Internet networking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha, trust me, I'm no IT expert. :) I've just spent a bit of time doing some research. Just to let you know, by autofill your credentials it's just when your browser stores your username and password and autofills it for you. It's a handy tool so you don't have to remember every password for every website, but there's a risk if the program autofills this information through a proxy server that you might not trust. On Firefox this setting is accessed through Preferences --> the security tab --> Remember passwords for sites. You can connect to a proxy through Preferences --> Advanced --> Network --> click the settings tab on "Configure how Firefox connects to the Internet --> select manual proxy configuration and enter the proxy settings. Mike VTalk 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, I used to be in IT but changed careers, and my knowledge is out-dated. The way I use Firefox is it asks me whether I want to remember a password. It will only do so if I say yes. So, now more questions. First, what would I put into the proxy settings on Firefox? When I then use Firefox (temporarily because I want to do this only for this test), will I have to log in to use the proxy? Once I get past that point, am I going to access Wikipedia through the proxy as opposed to logging in as myself? If I can access Wikipedia using the proxy, doesn't that answer the question without actually changing any content? (This would be easier in a synchronous chat than back and forth on a Talk page, but ...) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of the time you're going to run into a HTTP/HTTPS proxy, so you'll type in the IP address into the HTTP proxy field and select the port number. Unless it's a private proxy server, you shouldn't have to enter any log-in information. If you're able to access a webpage, then it works. You won't have to make any content changes. Mike VTalk 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know I have no more questions right now. I've saved this discussion as a permalink for future reference. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem! If you do have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Mike VTalk 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user (doubt)[edit]

I reported the anonymous user at ANI but no one replied. #Disruptive anonymous user.

What should I do when anon disrupts again? Should I revert IP without warning or should I add the new IP to the ANI report? SLBedit (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Depending on how the user is being disruptive, it might be best to report the IP to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, for instance. It seems that a number of the IPs you've listed have not made an edit for months, so it's unlikely they will be blocked right now. Mike VTalk 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
User is back with a new IP (talk · contribs). I didn't ask to block the old IPs, I listed them because they are evidence. SLBedit (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In your ANI report, you'll need to do more than just list the IPs. You have to provide diffs that clearly show that it's the same person and that it's not just two people with similar interests. Mike VTalk 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will. SLBedit (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP insulted me in this edit summary. Now what? SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Mike VTalk 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
He is back to insults (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Tesd52 (talk · contribs) is reverting me at F.C. Porto, saying that I can't edit the article. With this edit it seems that Tesd52 is the same user (also writing in Portuguese and attacking me).
"Por acaso não gosto desta vírgula e outra coisa tu podes fazer as edições que quiseres mas vais ter de levar connosco, já começa a ser demais..." translation: "I don't like that comma and another thing you can make all the edits you want but you will have to "confront" us, it's too much already..."
"chora e faz queixa vê la se eu me ralo, se eu quisesse já te tinha lixado meia página do Benfica e nunca o fiz por respeito ao trabalho dos outros." translation: "Cry and complain I don't care, if I wanted I had ruined/vandalized (you) half of Benfica article and I never did that for respect torwards other people's work".
Basically he is threatening me for editing his club's article because I am a supporter of Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
First I didn't threat nobody and second if I based my interpretations on you being a supporter of Benfica I wouldn't have mentioned the respect for other people's work, and that's exactly want you don't do, you have received complaints from some users because you are trying to dictate what pages should look like according to your own personal tastes. Tesd52 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That's curious because that's exactly what you are doing. You can clear you talk page but the warnings were already given. SLBedit (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
User insulted us in its talk page. SLBedit (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is back, trolling Talk:2014–15 S.L. Benfica season while pretending to help. SLBedit (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is back to harassment. SLBedit (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
IP is back disrupting 2014–15 S.L. Benfica season: (talk · contribs) SLBedit (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI Clerk[edit]

Hi! I applied to be a SPI clerk at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. I did not receive any answer in more than a month. Today, you removed my application (diff), with an edit summary "users have been offered to take part in the next round of training". I don't see any such offer. Where is it? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I found it! It's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/January 2015. Sorry. I just wasn't informed about the training. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I had hoped that the pings would have worked. We're just having interested trainees reaffirm their interest and then we'll get the ball rolling right away. Mike VTalk 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimi Lewis/Archive[edit]

Delgada1975 did its same pattern on his previous account Cal 505, as did on Give a Little More. (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with Sockpuppet Investigation[edit]

Hey, I wanted to ask your help as you have more experience with SPI than I, and also because you endorsed the checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WritersCraftHNU/Archive. The checkuser found the accounts unrelated, however, I think this may be some type of sock farm, all editing from different locations for the same purpose, and the behavior seems to show that. Also, once the SPI was closed, another new user Luckyjeane voted at the AfD Using the same style and wording, and I think is yet another sock. I just wanted to know if there is anything I can do as far as a behavioral investigation, this can't just be a coincidence that shortly after this article is created a slew of new users come to it's defense, especially regarding a relatively unknown person. Would you recommend I open a new SPI with this new user, or take no action, just wanted to get some input as I'm not really sure what to do next, but still think this should be looked at. Thanks for any help. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6 again[edit]

Hey Mike, another incarnation of the New Jersey Gabriella Comito virus Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) can be found in these edits. Gabby Comito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Steven Paul Fisher#Colorado poetry fellowship[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Steven Paul Fisher#Colorado poetry fellowship. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, Mike. Can you, please, take a look at the above-mentioned talk page discussion? User Steven Paul Fisher created large number of articles all of which are copy-pasted from scientific articles previously wrote and published by himself. He claims that he discussed the issue with you via e-mail and that you explained him that he has to send a permission letter to the OTRS team with permissions for every single source he used. He also claims that he did send the permission. I added {{OTRS pending}} tag to all the articles he created to keep them from being speedily deleted. I also noticed that you tagged some of his articles with "permission received" (like this one), but not the others. What does this mean? Did he send permissions only for some sources, but not for others? Should we delete other articles as copyvio or should we tell the user to send permissions for all sources? He keeps adding new articles continuously. He also tries to tag those articles with "permission received" tag himself, although he is doing it wrong way (diff). Anyway, it is not him who should confirm that the permission is received, but an OTRS team member. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, He's released all of the articles found in the database under the appropriate license, so I've informed him that he can add the permission notice only for articles that have been derived from there. I was the OTRS agent who worked with him to set that up. If I missed tagging some articles, it's likely just an oversight on my behalf. It would be nice to let him know about the template issue so that we don't have to fix it for every article. Mike VTalk 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Md iet sockpuppets causing disruptive behaviour and wasting admin time[edit]

I see very few responses even though the other user occultzone has also reported a sockpuppet with ip addresss starting from 106.215 who is disrpting all bohra articles , this sincle person has a big list of socks reported , I request that urgent action be taken against this user who does no abide by any wiki rules and props up even though he is banned.The best solution is to ban this ip range from dawoodi bohra articles or all wikiSummichum (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That K-pop link[edit]

Did you see the site? It's pretty distasteful, and that wasn't the first time. Poor Shinyang is about to give up on Wikipedia altogether. You've been active in the Vgleer archive (as has Materialscientist...) so I assume you are aware of how bad this can get. Anyway, I appreciate the help; I am beginning to think that if the WMF doesn't take any action this is just going to get more disgusting. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


I just found out that you are not supposed to have two accounts on wikipedia, well I have another one.But I haven't made any disruptive edits.I just don't want to get blocked.Malam kanam 2003 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You have many more than "another one" as the SPI will show. --NeilN talk to me 08:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)[edit]

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

University of Denver contributor[edit]

Hi Mike - are you able to access my Wiki e-mail? If you look at Colorado Poetry Fellowship there is a long thread that includes you.

Steve Fisher in Denver — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I just replied to your email. Mike VTalk 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Demeritus[edit]

I created a SPI for this user but I must have done something wrong or forgot to add information because it does not show up in the list of SPI cases on the main SPI page.

May I ask you to check what is wrong and edit what I did so it will be on SPI main page?

Thanks for your help! ArtemisOfMars (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

All fixed. Mike VTalk 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPI Clerk[edit]

Hello Mike V, for the past couple of months I've been seeing the big backlogs that regularly happen at SPI. As you can already see from my editing history and experience, I've filed numerous cases (where I did the main SPI investigations all by myself), most of them which have led to the findings of various sockpuppets and I can easily list all those cases. SPI is one my best administrative areas of Wikipedia where I really like and enjoy working the most. Also I just saw a training page which will be used for recruiting new SPI clerks. If you could suggest me, then I can happily add my name to the clerk's noticeboard and I'm sure everyone at the team would be happy to receive that extra help from me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've sent an email out to the other clerks to figure a few things out about the training. I'll keep you updated. Mike VTalk 22:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

md iet sock ruksaba causing disruption on my talk page[edit]

please see the last entry here:

the case is pending since many days, I suggest that this entire ip range be blocked 106.215.x.x as this sock is creating user accounts as soon as the sock is caught\blocked.Summichum (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien[edit]

As someone who has been active on the talk page, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter O'Brien. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Requests# This is most likely not a proxy range, and it is a busy range, as I see from CU data. I don't know your reasons for one-year anonblock, thus just leaving a note. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I contacted zzuuzz via email to figure things out, but I did not receive a response. I thought that I was able to access the HTTPS (443) port but if you've checked the range as well, I'll take your word for it. I've gone ahead and unblocked the range. Mike VTalk 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Someones impersonating salvadrin! (I think thats what their name is spelled??) again and is blanking user talk pages Saturn star (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a long term abuse user. I'll coordinate with the stewards to lock the accounts. Mike VTalk 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ulichar/Archive[edit]

Hi Mike, when you have some time - and if you're willing (if you're not, I understand) - could you take a look at the last report in this archive? The master has made an unblock request and some of his arguments are persuasive. I'm not keen on unblocking him, though, without further input. If you don't have time, let me know, and I'll go pester someone else. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see much behavioral evidence connecting Ulichar to the other accounts, so unless there was more evidence I'd be more likely to favor granting the unblock request. As always, you can apply the [WP:ROPE|rope]] philosophy. In addition, the CU results was only a possible. Though if there was more evidence I would be interested in seeing that, as I don't want to suggest you should unblock the account if the behavioral evidence is quite clear. Mike VTalk 04:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If it weren't for how disruptive he is elsewhere (he's been quite polite on his Talk page), it wouldn't bother me so much, but that's not really fair to use the possible sock puppetry as a proxy for sanctioning him for disruption. I'm going to unblock him. Thanks very much for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

EF Disabled[edit]

Special:AbuseFilter/621, no hits in 5 months--if I'm missing something feel free to revert. The overall EF match limit is getting high. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Nigerian epic films[edit]


Kindly undelete this category - Category:Nigerian epic films; as it already has a film grouped in it. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bull of Heaven#Genres[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bull of Heaven#Genres. Thanks. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC) not an open proxy? Used by lta Ararat Arev today[edit]

This edit[1] is just one of many similar edits made by various IPs, all of whom I and others believe to be Ararat Arev. (talk · contribs) is a another IP he used. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Mike V. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Regards, Manul ~ talk 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Somerset Trust Company[edit]

Hello Mike V,

I recently submitted an article that you deleted, and you cited that it was deleted for copyright infringement...however, I had nearly every sentence cited. You cited the bank's website "" However, I cited this multiple times.

Also, all the work I put in is now gone completely. It took me a long time to put that all there anyway I can get the article back, and fix whatever it is you saw wrong? I value your input, and am very interested in getting a page for Somerset Trust. Was there anything else you saw in the article that would prevent it from being posted?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if you cite the page it is still copyright infringement because you used the exact same wording as on the website. I regret that I can't provide a copy of the article. I would encourage you to read our page about [Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]] for further information. Best, Mike VTalk 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I appreciate the help. I will read through that. D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New sock[edit]

Hi Mike: New Gabby Comito sock [2]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Full protection needed again at Dorje Shugden controversy[edit]

Full protection needed again at Dorje Shugden controversyVictoriaGraysonTalk 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew lingen-stallard[edit]

As User:Andrew lingen-stallard's only surviving edits were an autobiographical user page, that page should probably be blanked (per CSD G11), apart from the death notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How to relist?[edit]

This case has been closed[3] and archived,[4] but I'd like to know if there is a way to re-open it and get a second opinion.

I provided a lot of evidence, but the closing remarks were very brief and a little confusing. How do I re-open the case?

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Lightbreather, just go nominate WP:Duck for MfD since it's no longer relevant.--v/r - TP 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just studying other cases and picking up on the jargon. I actually thought, "Oh snap! I needed to say 'DUCK.'" The red tape here is similar to that of the U.S. government, or big insurance companies. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@TParis: So I don't piss anyone off (which I seem to have a knack for): Do I re-submit it using the "How to open an investigation" instructions? Do I un-archive it? Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This is why I want to re-open. These are three closures from the last week:
  1. No substantial evidence.[5]
  2. Convincing behavioral evidence, primary (euthanasia) and secondary (medicinal) focus.[6]
  3. Unconvincing? Even though there is a primary focus (gun control), and a secondary one (words that are "pejoratives").[7]
I agree with the first two. The third one (the one I opened) seems very similar to the second, but the evidence was deemed unconvincing, when it looks (using the term I've learned) like WP:DUCK to me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't reopen it. It'd just be seen as disruptive. Mike V is an uninvolved administrator and he says it's unconvincing. That may not be enough to silence my snark, but I wouldn't reopen that SPI without new and more evidence if I were you.--v/r - TP 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You're confusing me, TP! What was your "duck" comment up-top about? Did you look at the evidence? How is the evidence I presented different from what was presented in the second example? And if it's not, why would it be disruptive to ask for a second review? Mike V, who may be a great guy, was the one who blocked me in November for editing while logged out,[8] so that may effect his ability to consider my evidence without prejudice. (Am I using the right jargon?) We also had a minor back-and-forth here, which may have also effected his ability to consider a case brought by yours truly. So - and again, he may be a nice guy, just like you - I think asking for a second opinion is not unreasonable, and certainly not meant to be disruptive, but to bring fresh eyes onto behavior that looks like socking to me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

When considering a case, I look at both "sides" of the case. In this specific case, I felt that the likelihood of the user being a sock was less than not. If you look at the editing time card, Faceless Enemy primarily abstains from editing from 8-16 h, while North8000 abstains around 4-8 h. The peak editing time is also different. Finally, note the frequency of edits throughout the week. North8000 edits consistently throughout each day of the week, while Faceless enemy's editing is more frequent in his or her evenings and during the weekend. These three aspects suggest they have different editing habits and that they live in different regions. I also looked at select sequences of their edits. There seems to be a number of edits that are too close in time frame to realistically be the same user. For instance, take a look at 21 July 2010 Faceless Enemy, North8000 they both made an edit at the same minute (23:04) and on August 2010 they made an edit a minute apart at 16:46 Faceless enemy North8000, just to name a few. The users also have very little overlap in topic interests. Compared to the evidence presented that primary focused on the accounts using a common word, I felt that the evidence suggesting they are not related was stronger.

Lightbreather: Just a general note, I personally choose to reserve the "duck" rationale for very obvious cases, such as this one with these two edits. (1, 2) I'm not one to hold grudges against people, especially on just a website. While I was the administrator who blocked you in the past, I'd like to note that I also closed this related case as well. If you can provide stronger evidence to link the users together, perhaps you might be able to convince a checkuser to run a check? North8000 just made 3 edits on the 6th, so the data is recent enough. In the meantime Bbb23, would you be willing to provide a second viewpoint? Mike VTalk 20:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for the more detailed response. I didn't start the case lightly, and it was hard work to pull the evidence together and try to figure out the best/right way to present it. I also thank you for being willing to a review. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I might add, if FE is not N8, then I think they are likely some other editor who has been topic-banned from GC. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the closure, Mike's closing notes (which were not confusing), and Mike's additional notes above. I, too, do not find the evidence presented convincing enough to block based on behavior. Most of the evidence presented is too conceptual. I look for paired diffs directly connecting the edits of the master with the edits of the puppet. I found very little of that here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

18:47, 5 February 2015 Mike V (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:On Course Foundation (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of[edit]


Sorry to bother you but I see that the page I put together was deleted for copyright issues. Is there any chance of retrieving my draft so that I can delete and rewrite the the section that this is referring to? I had not realised that I couldn't use the content from the website - I thought this would be ok if I referenced the page.

I did not save anything to my hard drive so the only copy I had was on Wiki.

I'm new to this so sorry for taking up your time.

Kind regards,

Emma Ballard ELBallard21 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

discourage sockpuppetry[edit]

Please take a look on this: Talk:Philip_Nitschke#Discourage_the_sockpuppet --ClaudioSantos¿? 02:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


You might be interested in this discussion. I didn't specifically mention you, and while it is technically a "block review" and you were the blocking admin, I don't feel like it actually questions your action; it's more of an unblock request than anything. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I also agree with your assessment as more of an unblock request. I might keep an eye on how the conversation goes. Mike VTalk 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


I didn't know how else to tag it. I didn't want to mess with a user page. Deunanknute (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Me disculpo[edit]

I was certain that Evenewyear was a socktitere, is that in the end justice was done, I feel very embarrassed by my actions and I apologize. Have a nice day.--Jean70000 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) P. D. for the next time I find a puppet but not who owns, what should I do?

In the future, I would encourage you to open a sockpuppet investigation case. An admin or a SPI clerk will help you with the rest. Mike VTalk 00:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Can I leave this account and start editing a new account from scratch? --Jean70000 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be best not to do that unless you had a really compelling reason to do so. (e.g. serious privacy issues, threats of harm, etc. - in which case you'd need to contact ArbCom) Most people would take it as if your trying to hide your additional account, especially when asking so close to the block. Mike VTalk 04:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For being so willing to help us out on IRC when we ping you to help with Admin stuff, I hereby award you this Barnstar. — kikichugirl speak up! 04:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike VTalk 04:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. Absolutly. I was going to barnstar you, but looks like Kikichugirl beat me :P --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Broke the topic ban[edit]

Hello. It follows that, on the basis of a clear consensus between other users and decision by administrator (in this case, your) [9], user:Раціональне анархіст aka Pax have ban on nominating articles for deletion and topic ban (pages, quotation: "about or related to pornography"). But user:Раціональне анархіст aka Pax very actively discussed and even vote in AfD about removal of pornographic actor [10][11][12]. It looks like a blatant violation of the topic ban. Also, this user are incapable of reform - the lack of any desire to improve behavior - user was punished for edits to the removal of pornographic pages and... continue doing the same thing. Subtropical-man talk
14:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This accusation is plainly false. The topic ban imposed on Pax had two components: "nominating articles for deletion" and "editing articles about or related to pornography" for the duration of 30 days. (That language is from the notice posted by you on Pax's talk page, tracking the language in the ban proposal at AN/I.) The phrasing of the topic ban proposals was careful and specific, and did not cover participation in AFD discussions on any subject. Perhaps such a ban might have passed if it had been suggested, but editors should not be subjected to ex post facto bans of this sort, particularly when there is not even a shred of a credible claim of substantive impropriety in postings comprising the purported "violation". Further, it seems clear that User:Subtropical-man is intent on harassing Pax, given the entirely spurious SPI accusations he made against Pax yesterday, which did no more than parrot accusations made in a prior SPI which were rejected "in the absence of actual evidence"[13] . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote, his actions are in line with the topic ban. Any additional restrictions must be proposed at the administrators' noticeboard. Mike VTalk 18:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please stop personal attack [14][15] and respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask.

  • why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught.
  • why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "about or related to pornography", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "about or related to pornography" and AfD about pornographic actor, so. Subtropical-man talk
    19:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As the checkuser results show, Pax was found to be unrelated to Redban. Please do not add any tags to the user's page. Mike VTalk 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft August Wesley[edit]

Hi Mike. I have submitted a page for review (August Wesley-wrestler). I did receive a notice that it needed additional references cited. Which I am planning on doing this morning. The page was intended to be saved and not yet submitted. However, I am having trouble finding the page I created. When I click on the draft link, I am being told that the page does not exist. Can you help me find the draft that I can go back and edit with additional references. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwesley (talkcontribs) 20:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article was deleted because it contained a promotional tone and didn't meet our standards on neutrality. I can email you a copy of it, but these issues will need to be addressed before it can be posted on Wikipedia.Best, Mike VTalk 21:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. Needless to say, I freaked out a little after weeks of hard work and research to see it deleted. If you could please email it to me, that would be great. My email is Is it possible to un-delete it so that I can correct the areas of concern as opposed to restarting the entire page? Also, if you could help direct me to the areas of concern, that would be awesome. Thank you so very much for your help. I am new to this and just trying to learn the ropes.  :) Thank you Mike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwesley (talkcontribs) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Draft August Wesley[edit]

Thank you for your quick response. Needless to say, I freaked out a little after weeks of hard work and research to see it deleted. If you could please email it to me, that would be great. Is it possible to un-delete it so that I can correct the areas of concern as opposed to restarting the entire page? Also, if you could help direct me to the areas of concern, that would be awesome. Thank you so very much for your help. I am new to this and just trying to learn the ropes.  :) Thank you Mike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamwesley (talkcontribs) 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Teamwesley: You might not want to post your email address like that so publicly - spambots could easily get it. Rather, go to Special:preferences, make sure your email is verified and enabled, and then perhaps you will be receiving email shortly. — kikichugirl speak up! 01:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Proud Austrian Paulinian[edit]

I had a feeling about this user, which is why I took it to SPI but I thought the check said they didn't find any correlation between the two? Did something change? LADY LOTUSTALK 16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The account is confirmed to Fairyspit per Callanecc's check. Mike VTalk 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nmap question[edit]

Mike, what options do I use to scan an IPv6? I'm using the Windows interface (not command line). When I run a preset scan, it comes back with an error and says to use -6. Adding that to the scan didn't seem to work (made it worse, something about tun0 not being an ethernet device). The Nmap documentation online isn't easy to decipher, at least not for me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I use the command line code to run it. The -6 refers to what you settings you would use. For instance, I'd type "nmap -6 <IPv6 Address>" to begin the port scan. As for the Windows interface, I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with it. I did a quick search and found this: It seems like the software is set up so that you can pick the options in a user friendly format and it will convert that to the line code. If you enable IPv6 in the settings, it will add "-6" to the code, allowing you to scan IPv6 addresses. Mike VTalk 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that is a picture of an older version of Nmap. Mine doesn't look like that. There's no such thing as "settings" in the traditional sense. If I understand how it works, you can either use one of a set of canned "profiles" for scanning different kinds of thing, or you can create your own profile, or you can just put the command you want in the Command text box. I've done the last option to try to do the simplest scan possible, so it looks like nmap -6 2601:7:1B02:0:7CDB:9455:7830:8865. The output from that is:
Starting Nmap 6.47 ( ) at 2015-02-16 13:44 Pacific Standard Time
Only ethernet devices can be used for raw scans on Windows, and
tun0" is not an ethernet device. Use the --unprivileged option
for this scan.
I even tried the same thing using the command line, and got precisely the same error.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The unprivileged option appears to be "--ipv6". Maybe give that a try? Mike VTalk 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I did, and it gives me a ton more output but none of it seems to work. At the bottom of the page of output, it says: unrecognized option `--ipv6' Friendly, isn't it? What happens if you try to scan that IP address?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reck article[edit]

I have reverted the delete article tag back into the Parker Reck article as the protestation/removal was done by a block-evading sock you just blocked. Per WP:DENY, the edits of the sock shouldn't stand - seems to me that when block evasion of an indeffed editor is being done to game the system (protesting so the request for article deletion is stopped), doing what I did is appropriate. Not trying to edit war, just trying to do things according to policy. -- WV 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: If you wish to follow policy, I would encourage you to review it. The proposed deletion policy is very clear that once a proposed deletion is removed it should not be put back, even in instances of bad faith or by blocked users. (The only exception is for banned users, which this individual is not.) If you still believe it should be deleted, it needs to go to AfD. Also, please note that WP:DENY is merely an essay, not a guideline or policy. Mike VTalk 00:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Funny you should bring up wp:deny being an essay, because I just realized it when re-reading the article on it. In fact, I was posting an apology to you here for using wp:deny as guideline/policy and was stopped with an edit conflict (your comments above). My bad and I am pretty embarrassed about it. Thanks for your patience with my stupidity! -- WV 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I've made similar mistakes in the past. :) Take care, Mike VTalk 00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
And since we're on the subject, since the child really isn't notable in a manner that would allow for an article to exist on him, I think the article should be rewritten to focus on the campaign the child's death inspired and then renamed Stop At 4. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? -- WV 00:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Perhaps you could write a small section up for the Stop At 4 page and then redirect the article. Mike VTalk 01:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the advice. -- WV 05:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Instalok...[edit]

...that user didn't even appear to know English and did not frequent similar areas of the encyclopedia (from what I can tell) compared to Fairyspit. Instalok was already indefinitely blocked so this doesn't really make much of a difference, but is it possible that Checkuser could have erred? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's most likely not a mistake, as the checkuser stated it was confirmed. This typically means that technically speaking they were an exact match. However, if you wish you can ask Callanecc, the checkuser who ran the check, to re-run it or you could ask another checkuser to offer a second opinion. Mike VTalk 00:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. I just saw that you had added the tag to Instalok's userpage so I thought I would ask. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyhook1[edit]

Thank you for your help. I wasn't sure about checkuser since User:Skyhook1 and the previous socks weren't IPs. I realize after I submitted how I should have done them together. I wasn't sure if the IP range could be blocked/flagged/watched, or if there is a way to view all users/contributions starting with a partial IP to find other possible problematic edits. Deunanknute (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

procedural question - SPI Greengrounds[edit]

Hi, thanks for controlling headings at that SPI. The instructions seemed to say I need to pull a lever to request a checkuser "technical investigation". I'm new at SPI issues, but that seems like a desirable thing to do from where I type. Advice? And do I have to ask for a checkuser "technical investigation", and if so what must I do? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE - I think I erred in my original analysis, as noted in the SPI filing. Thus, technical CU against the original accused party is no longer really needed, I think. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account(s) and vandalism[edit]

Please take a look at Gutian people and Gutian language. An obvious sock remove the sourced contents with false edit summaries over and over again by using ip, various accounts bla bla. (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Supergoodeditor and Reallygoodeditor[edit]

...he/she has another probable sock, AwesomeEditor1231. —George8211 / T 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A sockpuppet/masters auto bio[edit]

well for the one of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SavEyChauhan I had the article Savey Chauhan as a blp prod until I noticed just now some sources so I just put a prod though I think maybe a speedy be the best given its a auto bio. Just wanted to point this out right now, thanks. Wgolf (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Page[edit]

My page located at was deleted for "Unambiguous copyright infringement." Would you be able to explain in more detail this deletion? For instance, if one section of the page was infringement, why was the entire page deleted rather than part of it? Do you happen to remember what the offending material was in this case? Thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliomachus (talkcontribs) 18:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

GeorgeJefferys: another sock?[edit]

Hi, I wasn't certain how to re-open a sock investigation, so I thought I'd come here. As you can see at [16], User:CWLilius is continuing an argument began by User:Morboso with a similar pattern of posting. User:Morboso was previously blocked as a puppet of User:GeorgeJefferys. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


FYI I reverted someone impersonating me on this page by posting one of my old messages/signatures. Chillum 00:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. :) Mike VTalk 03:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pancho Barnes[edit]

Hi, 172, and thank you for the kind words! If we were able to go back in time to Pancho's bar in the 1950s, knowing what we know now, I can't imagine how magical an experience it would be for a child of the space-age '60s like myself. I understand wanting to go with the more familiar "Pancho," but that's really against the rules (the Manual of Style, specifically, which says we use last names only after the first full mention. That said, I hope you stick around Wikipedia and help add to this wonderful free encyclopedia! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry[edit]

Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism.

If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how that turns out for you. Being a brand new user jumping into a heated debate accusing another user of jumping into a heated debate is a bit rich, I am sure it will turn out well. Chillum 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Response to above paranoid schizophrenic behavior. Not an account holder nor am I a boggy man and never made any claim to be a new user so that makes you a liar as well. It seems your paranoid behavior has led to a knee jerk paranoid action. Sorry but that is the truth that you cannot handle. Hey go ahead and range block, as it a cellular IP you will only block a few million of a major provider. It would be another ignorant but predictable move. Your online friend also salted the well laid out SPI investigation about an obvious sock or meat puppet of RGlouchester and a brand new account Jobrot. [17] Don't worry I saved it and will post elsewhere as more evidence of you get what you pay for which is not much when it is free. Interesting cultish behavior where without any evidence you make false accusation and attempt to bury well founded evidence. Keep up living in your little world of make believe. More evidence that project is failing to come close to its stated goal. Thanks for the evidence and your behavior is a bit rich. (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

::Your use of the new IP for block evasion and impersonating me on several talk pages is very telling. Chillum 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Outsmarting a paranoid schizophrenic is quite easy and if you link my edits to other edits with a similar IP you will see I have been editing for years so your paranoid behavior is just that. I have been fighting spam, promotional articles, COI, and unprofessional admins for years and quite successfully. Sorry I have to call out unsophisticated foolish behavior but you did it to yourself Chillum. And again no one impersonated you, they just reposted you elsewhere to highlight your paranoid behavior. I have made it very easy for you to see who I am so you will not go after anyone else due to your paranoia. (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket for File:15 Undergrowth.jpg[edit]

Was the permission for this image limited to the smaller version, or should I restore the bigger one I revdeleted when we assumed it was non-free? (The same question probably applies to a bunch of the user's other uploads as well, but I think this is the only one that stayed on my watchlist.) —Cryptic 03:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The permission release applies to the original file. There are a few more files that I still have to finalize from the permission release. I've corrected the above file and I'll do the same for the rest. Best, Mike VTalk 03:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bucal, Calamba[edit]

Hello Mike, would you be able to shed some light on User talk:Bucal, Calamba#Blocked as a sockpuppet? The template unfortunately has no mention of illegitimate use, and neither the talk page of this user, nor that of the accused puppeteer, user talk:Jeuzreel Villasante (before blanking), gives any hint. Thanks! — Sebastian 08:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at Special:Contributions/Bucal,_Calamba, and it does look very bad. So, there's no need for me to steal your time for this. That said, I regret the time I spent on this. For you, as an experienced sockpuppet investigator, it may be obvious why you blocked someone, but for others, it is not. Please use the evidence parameter of Template:SockBlock, so that others don't end up wasting their time trying to find out why you blocked a given user. Thanks! — Sebastian 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Jadranka Kosor[edit]

Hi Mike V, just letting you know that your change from 4 March 2014 at sr.wikipedia: Jadranka Kosor have been reverted [18]. She thanked Wikimedia for the removal of that false info from 20 wiki pages [19] but on sr.wikipedia it still stands.--Rovoobo Talk 12:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't speak Serbian and I'm limited to my best efforts with Google translate. Do you or someone you know have the ability to translate the language? Mike VTalk 17:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What do you need translated? I thought it was an official removal from Wikimedia of wrong info used on wiki pages, as you removed it accross a number of pages on 4th of March 2014 and she thanked Wikimedia for it the day after on her twitter. (Engl. translation of what she said: Thanks Wikimedia. They removed the false information (from more than 20 pages!) that I was born "Vlaisavljević". I was born Kosor, and that's it.)--Rovoobo Talk 07:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing "official", I'm just a volunteer. I had thought that it would have been an easy fix, as I recall there was updated information to reflect her correct last name. If anyone wants to assist with the corrections and communicating to the Serbian community, they're more than welcome to help. Mike VTalk 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this one was reverted: [20] and these ones still have it: (дзяв. Влаісаўлевіч), Γιάμπρανκα Βλαϊσαβλιεβιτς (Jadranka Vlaisavljević), Jadranka Vlaisavljević-Kosor.--Rovoobo Talk 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost anyone familiar with the Serbo-Croatian language or the various southern Slavic dialects can help. I wish my knowledge was better, but I rely on Google Translate too. Bok! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File:No37 Flotsam and Jetsam .jpg and ticket 2015021310017382[edit]

Hi Mike,

I am trying to close out the remaining IFDs related to ticket 2015021310017382 and one of them is for File:No37 Flotsam and Jetsam .jpg, which I can't find mentioned in the ticket. Can you either (a) find and point out where it is mentioned, (b) ask the copyright holder to add it to the statement of permission?

Thanks, --B (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto for File:Queen'sBeasts1953 copy1.jpg and File:AlisonGeissler3.jpg. Thanks --B (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RD2 Request[edit]

Hi Mike,

I was hoping you would be able to perform a RD2 on Shulinjiang's latest IP attack. was blocked, however the obscene messages in the edit logs still have public visibility.

Thanks, Pvpoodle (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

another one as well if you dont mind. Pvpoodle (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


I have tried for a long time to get the person who wrote this - [21] - off my back. Most recently here: [22]. I cannot for the life of me see how he manages to pull off these kinds of shenanigans without consequence. I don't know that I expect you to do anything about it, but I want you to know. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Other then I disagree with you do you actually have a valid point? I don't think there was anything inappropriate in that comment and I certainly didn't originate the SPI. Didn't even call you a liar this time, your complaints change so much that it might help to understand what your actual problem is other then I have stood up to your socking, canvassing and forumshopping. It's a broken record but it's your actions that have led you to that point, I didn't make you do those things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have told you that if you insist on casting aspersions and making allegations, then I may have to start following you around and calling you a disruptive liar. And unlike you, I am generous with diffs - diffs showing clear evidence that don't need explanations. You've got a problem with me? Take it to the appropriate forum and present your evidence, otherwise - Leave. Me. Alone. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I see a threat of WP:POINT? Point of fact I was at that forum you speak of so in essence I have already done as you request and commented at SPI (the forum appropriate for these complaints} so you really don't have a complaint that hasn't been addressed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sharing suspicions without evidence[23] is casting aspersions. That's the point. Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That is an absurd application of logic sorry if you don't like it but if that's your issue on reasons it could be you or others then you have nothing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Leave. Me. Alone. Lightbreather (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #13304[edit]

Wanna take a look? I'm not yet super familiar with proxies/webhosts, so I dunno if the rangeblock should be changed to anon. only, the user should get IPBE, or some other outcome entirely. Thanks. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's 100% a web host. :) I've left a few notes on UTRS. Check out the WHOIS link, google the company name, and you'll see. Mike VTalk 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Comito[edit]

Hi Mike, we've got another Gabby Comito sock Gabriella Grace C.. I've added it to the SPI. Not sure what to do about these recent edits, as two other users basically memorialized her edits. Would appreciate an admin eye. Thanks. Also, I've asked for page protection at Daddy, I'm a Zombie. I'm hoping that the participating admin doesn't offer something flimsy like 2 weeks, since this kid is incessant. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another here: Gabby Grace C. Need quick response, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Finealt sock[edit]

Just blocked User talk:Rannidini per DUCK. I don't know whether it should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finealt or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181 or DENIED. It remains untagged. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:William Parkin[edit]

Hi Mike V! On 3 September last year you deleted the talk page for an existing article William Parkin. Are you able to restore it or is it easier for me to redo it? Doug butler (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored the talk page. Mike VTalk 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug butler (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments[edit]

Please note the nominations have been posted, and there are standard questions to be answered. Members of the community may also ask questions, so please monitor your nomination(s) until the comment period is concluded on the 18th. Those who are running for both flags have two sections, and two copies of the standard questions -- the first two, at least, are likely to have different answers, so this isn't redundant. (The third one, well, it does.) Thanks for your willingness to serve. Courcelles (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Barbera Caffe[edit]

Hi Mike V, I am writing in regards to a deleted page "Barbera Caffe'" I am in the food business and also a foodie and a coffee aficionado. And, I am just baffled to see that Barbera Caffè's page has been deleted. It is the oldest existing coffee roaster in the world with such interesting history. Of all the coffee companies listed Barbera surely deserves to be listed in Wikipedia. How can it be relisted? Thanks Mynyc (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynyc (talkcontribs) 17:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I really need your help. There were no valid or real reasons given. I read the deletion concerns raised and they are purely arbitrary. The entry was neither advertorial nor promotional. If the information is incorrect, fabricated (which was not) even then it is ok only with a proof of evidence. Evidently it is not self penned because they would have interfered with the deletion. Also, it cannot be so because it seems like their Italian Wikipedia page has much more less information. (anyway, all big companies do interfere with the process, either thru HR, agents, or hired pro editors etc. or even resort to legal means to modify an entry.) But deleting valid and accurate information is either an ego trip or a malicious act. Barbera Caffe’s listing was based on facts. Barbera is a legendary company, well known in the industry, with an important history in the coffee industry as well as the Italian coffee culture. Barbera Caffe is a prominent brand in the industry, a family company still producing artisanal coffee for coffee lovers. How can one decide to delete a topic they do not know? Without any information and evidence. So Mike V, How can the listing be resurrected or relisted? Who should I apply to? Mynyc (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was promotional in nature. Given your use of peacock terms such as "legendary company, well known in the industry, with an important history, prominent brand in the industry, a family company still producing artisanal coffee", I'm concerned that you have a conflict of interest with this company. Please note that undisclosed paid editing is strictly forbidden by the terms of use. Again, you are welcome to create the article but if it is too promotional, it's likely to be deleted. Mike VTalk 18:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry and vandalism[edit]

Hi Mike. An user persistently vandalise the articles of Gutian people and Gutian language. Sock accounts that involved in deletion of sourced contents and edit wars are:

Can you take a look at or watchlisted these articles? Because it seems to me that he wont stop.