User talk:NativeForeigner

Note: Archives are below in template as well. New archives will appear in header.

Header ripped off from Anonymous Dissident (Thanks)

Please, be my guest, and whack me with a large trout if the situation demands it.

This user replies where he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

$\lnot \mathrm {TB}$Please refrain from using the dreaded Template:Talkback on this page multiple times in the same discussion (I'll have it watched after the first template)

Vote!

Formerly Redskunk (talk · contribs)

Barry Quirk

Thanks NativeForeigner...

Thank you for removing the request for my ne page on Barry Quirk to be deleted. Does this mean it's safe, or will there still be a debate of some sort? SophiaMSophiahounslow (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it is certainly not be speedy deleted. It could be brought to articles for deletion, but it hasn't been yet. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And if my preliminary search is correct, he is in fact notable, so will not be deleted. I'll look over the article later and see if I can help. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DesignContest

Hi, can you help me with deletion of my article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DesignContest

What I must to do to undelete it?

Hope you will help me. SlavaBest (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@SlavaBest: I can move it into your userspace (see WP:USERFY), and it would be located at User:SlavaBest/DesignContest such that you could porentially improve it. However, your article was deleted due to a reasonably robust consensus it should be deleted due to its failure of WP:N/WP:GNG/WP:NBUSINESS. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, do it. I`ll try to improve it. After improving I need to ask you again to move it back or what?SlavaBest (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Potentially. I do not think that the subject of the article is notable, so it is likely the subject would need to have improved coverage before any article would be accepted. I was mostly concerned you didn't lose access to the article you wrote. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, I lost access to the article, and I understend about coverage. Will try to do it SlavaBest (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You now have access at the link above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

There's an unblock request at User talk:119.160.118.65, for an open proxy block that you imposed in October. I can find no evidence that the IP address is currently running an open proxy, nor even any sort of proxy, so probably it can be unblocked, but I thought it best to check with you, in case you know something relevant that I don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: According to my notes there was an indefblocked user on it, and an nmap indicated that it was an open proxy. Nmap is coming up negative now, so I agree from that perspective it can be unblocked. However regardless, it seems like it's an IP block on top of what was at one point a huge sockfarm, the unblock request is phrased exactly how the master requested unblock, and I'm inclined to reblock it for shorter duration as a {{checkuserblock}} due to the sheer quantity of disruption I saw from it. I'll look into it a bit more before I do so however. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll leave it in your hands, since you have access to information that I don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Picker78/User:Promiscuous man's WP:Sockpuppetry again -- now known as User:Sakis Sg

See here, which is a dead giveaway because of this. Also take note that Picker78 decided to create the Sakis Sg account just two hours after I made this WP:Dummy edit note of WP:Sockpuppetry (or more like one hour afterwards, considering that the hour was almost over when I made that note); I made that note because Drowninginlimbo, who clearly is not new to editing Wikipedia (judging by Drowninginlimbo's editing) commented on a matter that Picker78 cares about. One could state that Picker78 created the Sakis Sg account to throw me off Drowninginlimbo's scent. But there is the fact that Drowninginlimbo's editing style is (or seems) different than Picker78's.

On a side note: NativeForeigner, would you be willing to restore Promiscuous man's talk page so that his confirmation that he is Picker78, and that he will always return, is readily accessible (as in not only accessible to the WP:Administrators)? Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am no one's sockpuppet. I don't know who Picker78 is. The point is that prostitution only comes together with promiscuity. You can't have a non-promiscuous prostitute. The reference to promiscuity needs to exist in the article. You can't classify as prostitute a wife that receives money from her husband. You just have to look at the Merriam-Webster's full definition of prostitution. It clearly writes "promiscuous sexual relations". Sakis Sg (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also take note that in Picker78's latest official sockpuppet case, I mentioned that he consistently returns to certain articles "as different IPs and registered editors to add his preferred wording, WP:Edit war over it, and to deny that he is Picker78; if he ever admits to being Picker78, it is when he is caught." Just like he denied, denied, denied until others confirmed that he is Promiscuous man...which, again, is the reason that I have requested that Promiscuous man's talk page be restored to the public. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I did very little editing before making an account and it was without an account. This is my only account --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am neither Picker78 or Promiscuous Man. I just saw the edit history as well as the talk page of the Prostitution article and decided to activate my account. I did very little editing too before starting this account. Before judging so easily, you just have to see what the real point is. Can you have a non-promiscuous prostitute? Absolutely no. So, this has to be made clear inside the article. Many women receive money and benefits from their spouses but they are no prostitutes. Sakis Sg (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You must think that I and others are the stupidest people ever. You made your Sakis Sg account a very short time after I noted WP:Sockpuppetry (the note mentioned above). You created a user page for your first edit, and with dots, which immediately shows you as a WP:Sockpuppet or someone very familiar with Wikipedia, considering that the vast majority of brand new Wikipedia editors don't immediately create a user page and certainly never with a dot or multiple dots; such creations are done because such WP:Sockpuppets know that a red-linked user page usually signals that the editor in question is new or otherwise inexperienced with editing Wikipedia, and that experienced Wikipedia editors therefore often think of such accounts in a less favorable way than an experienced registered Wikipedia account. You made edits just to get WP:Autoconfirmed (yeah, you did). You added the same content as Picker78. You WP:Edit war just like Picker78. You deny being Picker78 just like Picker78, even at a WP:CheckUser's talk page. You make the same arguments as Picker78. You sign your username, something that the vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't do, despite the message at the top of the editing space telling them to do so when they are in the process of commenting. And you expect me to believe that you are not Picker78? Stop wasting my and everyone else's time. I know that I stated before that I would no longer entertain your denials. And, really, I should not have revealed to you here in this discussion what easily identifies a WP:Sockpuppet. But this is very likely the last time I will ever entertain/indulge you in your denials. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you are obsessed because you seem to be looking for sockpuppets all the time. Of course I made the 10 edits just to get autoconfirmed, so as to be able to edit a semi-protected article. I am clever enough to understand how to sign my posts. I am not too new in Wikipedia, I used to edit as an IP up to now. I already had this account but there was no reason to activate it as I was able to edit as an IP. This was the first time I wanted to edit a semi-protected article, so I had to get autoconfirmed. Sakis Sg (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sakis sg  Confirmed I'll check into the other account at my earliest convenience. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Drowninginlimbo is related on a behavioral basis (although you are correct there are some similarities. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted Sakis Sg yet again. Sakis Sg also didn't help his case when he admitted that he had a WP:Sleeper (account in the wings); such an account, as you know, is typical WP:Sockpuppet behavior. Considering how especially obvious Picker78 was this time, I wonder if he was WP:Baiting me; he had to have known that I would jump right on him. But then again, there was no way that I was not going to take the bait and revert and/or report him for WP:Sockpuppetry, and he keeps trying to add his preferred wording to articles regardless. As for Drowninginlimbo, yes, Drowninginlimbo is obviously not a new Wikipedia editor, but, like I stated above, has an "editing style [that] is (or seems) different than Picker78's." Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As for your restoring User talk:Promiscuous man, I was definitely hoping for his confession to be restored. Any reason you chose to leave a note instead? Thanks, though, whatever your reason. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We try to minimize such attention seeking but in this case it is clear evidence so I've restored it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And by the way, this new account stood out to me because it edited the Starr Manning article soon after I did minutes ago, and that article is not a high-traffic article (in views or in editing). That editor may be trying to get WP:Autoconfirmed. I don't mean to come across as paranoid, but I'm throwing this out there...in case that editor turns out to be Picker78 as well. Picker78 always creates WP:Sleepers at some point; sometimes soon, other times not so soon. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The recent SPI

Um.. I don't want to turn out malicious or anything, but, has Atlantictire been sanctioned at all for all this? -- Director (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Bbb extended the block out to ten days duration, if it happens again it will likely (almost certainly) be indef. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

After all the "gestapo", "antisemitic crank", "bigot", etc. + the three attack socks? I always thought if you're a multiple sockpuppeteer you're indeffed on the spot. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's generally left to the discretion of the blocking admin. I'd talk to @Bbb23: about this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Puzzling sock block

NativeForeigner, I'm puzzled by your block of Electrostatic345345 (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of Mittybark111 (talk · contribs). I don't see any mention of this user account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mittybark111/Archive. If this is a sockpuppet case, shouldn't it be documented better? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see why you would be confused. I ran a checkuser on the case located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/207.255.205.112#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments. A clerk should merge the case to the Mittybark111 case at some point in the next day or two. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoah - Mittybark111 is one busy troublemaker. Thanks for cleaning up that mess. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Daveandbusters1345

Daveandbusters1345 was indeffed as one of the ceiling fan puppets. An IP left this message on my talk page, and I blocked the IP for one year for block evasion and being a confirmed proxy server. Then, when I probed further, I saw a range of IPs editing Archie Karas. My guess is Daveandbusters was using the proxy server to post to my talk page as the other edits of that IP and of the other IPs seem unrelated to the subject matter of the sock puppetry. Does anything further need to be done? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've locked the account and globally blocked the proxy. --Rschen7754 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

technically clean meat

In this edit to a sockpuppet investigation, you said "Some of these acoutns coule be meat but are technically clean." The mental image that comes to mind is Kosher spam (food), which of course does not exist. Thanks for the laugh. Oh, and I do understand what you were really trying to say. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Teaching wikipedia in comm 106i s14

Hi there

I am a professor in the communication department planning on a wikipedia editing assignment with my 80 studemt class this quarter. As campus ambassador, can you help me? I am reading up on the instructir and syllabus materials, but it would be great to meet and talk about advice or support to students as they undertake their projects for the quarter.

Might you be free to meet this week?

Thank you, Lilly Irani

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft

Hi there. I can forgive you for groaning when you see that heading. First, I'd like to thank you for your recent work on the case when you uncovered several latent accounts. Secondly, though, I wonder if you can give me some advice.

As you know Daft is a long-term abuser of the site who focuses on WP:CRIC by disrupting its articles and making personal attacks on several of its members. There is one exception, User:Johnlp, whom Daft sees as an "ally" of some kind although there is no real reciprocation of that, except in as much as Johnlp endeavours to be all things to all men and tries to see every point of view. The difficulty is that Johnlp believes Daft should be able to use User talk:Johnlp to express his views and he has resisted efforts by those of us trying to remove Daft's edits by saying that it is "his page" and he will decide what is displayed there.

I believe that under the terms of WP:BMB, Johnlp has no say in this and should stand aside when Daft's posts are removed from the talk page. Better still, I believe the page should be semi-protected to stop Daft using it. I have gone to WP:Requests for page protection but am not confident of that process as I'm proposing another user's talk page. I have also reported Daft to WP:Long-term abuse/Richard Daft.

Can you advise me on these steps? Am I going about things the right way and is there anything else you can suggest? Thanks very much. HCCC14 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Only further step is AN or ANI but I'd generally try to avoid that unless absolutely necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention

Hi User:NativeForeigner,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)