User talk:Kww

Archives at:

1. User talk:Kww/04022009
2. User talk:Kww/Archive05202009
3. User talk:Kww/Archive09072009
4. User talk:Kww/04012010
5. User talk:Kww/04232010
6. User talk:Kww/06052010
7. User talk:Kww/06182010
8. User talk:Kww/07182010
9. User talk:Kww/07242010
10. User talk:Kww/11012010
11. User talk:Kww/04142011
12. User talk:Kww/08252011
13. User talk:Kww/03122012
14. User talk:Kww/11032012
15. User talk:Kww/06092013
16. User talk:Kww/12072013
17. User talk:Kww/20140727

DVMt/Neuraxis

After I added the template to the chiropractic page on May 20, 2014 DVMt deleted the very same template on May 21, 2014 I added to the fringe theories. The motivation for deleting the template from the fringe theories was because I added the template to the chiropractic page. This shows DVMt has a battleground mentality. DVMt accused me of adding two templates to the fringe theories but I only added one. There was no specific rationale argument to delete the templates.

User:Adam Cuerden restored the template I originally added and added a {{third-party-inline}} template.

DVMt deleted a template that was added to the page back in December 2011 and deleted the template User:Adam Cuerden restored. This shows DVMt was blindly deleting the {{Unbalanced}} template that was in the article for a number of years. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DVMt claims "The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here [1]."[2] The {{Bias source}} template I originally added no longer exists. I created a new and different template. There was no discussion for removing "two templates" at the fringe page. The discussion is about only one template but DVMt removed two templates. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a {{db-copyvio}} in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the website Quackwatch. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_3#User:DVMt.2Fsandbox. Even sandboxes should not have copyright violations. See User:DVMt/sandbox. Now the copyright violation was added to the chiropractic talk page. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru, the material in DVMt's sandbox does not qualify as a copyright violation. It could be made a little clearer as to what parts are quotes and what parts are DVMt's analysis of that material, but the attribution is reasonably clear and the usage of the material is to provide commentary on it.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Kshilts previously deleted pseudoscientific[3] and other text from the chiropractic lede[4][5][6] Neuraxis is back using a sock account. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hum possibly. Not sure if we should wait for further edits to clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over WP:FAKEARTICLE

See diff. The edit summary suggest he thinks the fake article littered with mass OR and mass MEDRS violations is an improvement over the well developed chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now User:Jayaguru-Shishya is making pointy comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The first link you provided, it's still under discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox

Therefore, it would be violating to remove it until the dispute has been discussed. Why are you reporting such a claim?

You just got banned for the so called pointy comments on your talk page. Here is the message from administrator John[7]

Hi there Quackguru. I have blocked your account for one week for disruptive editing. Your edits to electronic cigarette are either riddled with error or too one-sided. When you come back I want you to take a lot more care, consider avoiding areas where you have very strong views, and (especially) remember that editing here is a collaborative process (meaning we have to work together) and a privilege (which can be withdrawn). If you wish to appeal against this block you may do so by posting {{unblock|your reason here}}, but you should review WP:GAB first. Best wishes and good luck. --John (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

.

You even dared to remove it from yout Talk Page, until the very administrator John restored it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=610687333

Do not remove it again, okay? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Also he refused to collaborate, a proposal which I made on his Talk Page before his ban even[8]. He just deleted it. He clearly is here not to collaborate. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally reverted a new account that only made one edit to Wikipedia. I added in-text attribution as a compromise. I'm saving this diff. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is deleting sourced text without any consensus and without any good reason. I don't see any discussion on the talk page to delete the text. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned in the edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (Herbxue, Dougmcdonell, Jayaguru-Shishya, 2044.174.12.10, Jytdog, Bumm13). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg"

So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong). Please see the consensus flowchart linked in the edit summary. Why did you revert something approved by so many editors? Have you learnt anything from your most recent ban? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will examine the list to see if any legitimate editors have supported removal of the text, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also for John and Tiptoety good to know. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, please show where 7 editors approved of your edit. Please also show where was the discussion on the talk page for consensus to delete the text. You haven't shown you got consensus to delete the text and you still have not given any reason to delete the text. I added in-text attribution as a compromise for the text at TCM. I added in-text attribution which fixed any concerns about the text. In-text attribution was also done at acupuncture as a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is still claiming 7 editors approved of his edit. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the policy and here is your revert against 7 different edits per previous policy. It seems you keep continuing the same behaviour right after your most recent ban. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, your list of seven editors is obviously false, as it includes editors that do not exist and editors that have not commented on the issue. Examine your list, correct it and correct the count, or stop using it. The next claim of "seven supporters" that you make without providing an actual list of seven supporters will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pertaining to WP:Consensus Flowchart. Since the revert QuackGuru made over the edit of Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article remaining User Bexgro's edit. This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave myself and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". So what's the problem here?

Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attempting to deceive people by conflating "seven people edited the article" with "seven people agreed with the removal of this material". Again, count the people that have actively stated support for the change and replace your claim of seven with the result, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not attempting to deceive anyone, that's ridiculous. User QuackGuru has been the one making accusations against me[9]. Again, like the chart over WP:CON demonstrates, the last version remained unchanged and got edited by several other contributors before QuackGuru reverted it. And as I made it pefectly clear in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong...", or like I already stated here: "So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong)...". If one disagrees, can he/she at least correct me? I am open to correct my statements if I am wrong, naturally. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You claimed you have consensus but it seems you did not have a consensus to delete the text in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been attempting to correct you, Jayaguru-Shishya, using the time-honoured technique of making someone examine an issue until they see where they have gone wrong. It's one of the ways that I use to distinguish good-faith editors from others. Do you truly not see how, for example, an editor like Bumm13 that focuses on making corrections to transliterations and linking is not expressing an opinion on your change? That 204.174.12.10's opinion on shark-fin soup is not a comment about your change? That McSly's reversion is a negative opinion on the change? That QuackGuru's edits are a negative opinion of your change? In short, the only other editor that made any statement in favour of the change was Herbxue? Hardly the seven to one consensus you are using to justify your edits.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Kww. I start to understand that we have been looking this from totally different perspectives, but I do get your point now. This is what I am concerned about:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. (WP:CON)

I understand now that you are pointing out to different motives behind the edits of each user that I were pertaining to. In my understanding, though, WP:CON only speaks about implicit and invisible process of consensus; the motive of edit does not matter as long as the edit is not disputed. This is what I see to be Bexgro's case.

Well, this is my understanding on WP:CON, but I don't really see why QuackGuru couldn't try discussing the issue first at the article Talk Page? I even stated very clearly in my edit summary: "...Revert this if I'm wrong..."[10], and that already happened by Jim1138[11]. I am not seeking for any trouble and in my opinion, everything is okay at the article already. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of consensus is wrong. Certainly, there is a concept of silent consensus: an edit that lasts for months on an actively edited article can be presumed to have some level of consensus. Not a very strong one if no one has been actively supporting it, but yes, it's there. An edit that has been around for a couple of days while a couple of editors actively removed it cannot be said to have any level of consensus at all. —Kww(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarky edit summary

I appreciate your pulling me up for this edit summary. I think I read your comment more harshly than it was intended. Thanks for explaining. --John (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prem Raj Pushpakaran

As you are literate in coding, your assistance would be helpful. Currently, when AfCs are XfDd, like in the link above, the template assumes it is a talk page. It shouldn't, as AfCs are articles in talkspace. Therefore, would you be so kind as to edit Template:User-links and create an if statement so that it recognises AfCs and thus behaves as though it is an article? (It would need to ask if the first 37 characters equal "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", I know there is an expression for that but I don't know what that is.)Launchballer 18:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful

The reputation that is most effected when a false accession is made is your own. In saying early in the discussion about DVmt, that "It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals", you made a claim of sock puppetry that you later retracted. This site makes such false accession far too easy; even so, anyone who does so is clearly marked in the community at large by doing so. And one must always be more careful in accusing ones that we disagree with, or find distasteful, wouldn't you agree? Best wishes to you here, but I hope never to see another such serious accusation turn out to be mistaken. (No RSVP necessary, but if so, please reply here. I will mark and watch.) Cheers. Le Prof [failed to sign earlier, so signing now, belatedly] Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See comment regarding your stridency

I likely, case by case, will come to the very same conclusions that you do, but I will not, a priori, dis-allow anyone from bringing a citation-based sentence of text into the Wikipedia, perceived pseudoscience or no. Stridency such as yours, while to some extent keeping science focused on the most likely explanations, has also led to huge failures and crises in modern science (e.g., the sidelining of the late Carl Woese for most of his early career; though declining major society awards to the end of his days for the prejudicial slights he experienced early, at least his story ended well, as he was vindicated, and esteemed). Opposite that, other major research laboratories have come-and-gone that were on the wrong tack for years (clinging to failed hypotheses, long past the point where the preponderance of science had said "let go", because all data coming the way of the PI was prejudged based on worker perceptions of what the PI was willing to hear). These historical observations, as much as the one given from the birth of modern physics, are the basis for my comment regarding religiosity among the most fervent of science types. The direction such attitudes point may indeed be different from those of its opponents, and the aims largely correct. But it is still philosophically the same mares nest, and when it falls, it falls hard. One sees it in the history of science, in biology, in chemistry (my field), in drug discovery, etc. etc. Please, approach everything in an evidence-based fashion, and not prejudicially. Even if only one of the myriads of seemingly nonsensical alternative treatments proves true, we would lose (and lose ourselves) if we resort to anything less than empiricism to find the one and dismiss the others. See comment regarding your stridency, at [12]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014

Can you take a look at Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014 ? This edit summary [13] confuses me, and the edits are piling up. I'm not sure how to review this. Thanks, Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tails of that one either, Origamite. Do you know whether the edit is accurate? That's the important part, not the ramblings of an anonymous editor.—Kww(talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes... but games keep getting added, and I'm not sure whether to approve those (the editors might be at E3) or not. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty simple rule in my book, Origamite: if they didn't provide a good enough source for you to verify it, they didn't provide a good enough source for you to approve it.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz

Greetings! As a confirmed user, this doesn't affect me, but I'm curious: I don't see the persistent vandalism or edit-warring that used to be a requirement for page protection. Did I miss something? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty blatant BLP violations in the history, of the kind that experience has taught me is a meme. No reason to suffer through it.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Carry on. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply

You've got a reply on Template talk:Singlechart#Countries for chart identifier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlylambert (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Owner of archive.today

I would like to inform you that a pattern that I have noticed could serve as a strong hint regarding the ownership of archive.today by User:Rotlink. I’m telling you this here instead of mentioning it in a more general location because I’m not sure what the best place to mention it would be.

In the message where he claimed to be the owner of archive.is, Rotlink ended a sentence with the “:(” emoticon not preceded by a period, the next sentence starting with a capital letter: “[…] nor in Tubmlr control panel :( Hopefully, I found this conversation […]”.

A message posted 4 weeks ago on the archive.today blog shows exactly the same pattern: the very same emoticon, not preceded by a period, right at the end of a sentence and preceding a sentence starting with a capital letter: “It is not easy, PhantomJS allows to spoof User-Agent only for the request of the main page, not for the images and AJAX requests :( So you may get something weird instead […]”.

It is very improbable that this is a coincidence. It may seem very ridiculous, which is why I have called it a hint rather than a proof or evidence. Yet, in truth, there is no doubt that they are the same person: the probability that two persons, when one of them has claimed to be the other, have this very same writing pattern, which appears four other times on the blog (but the occurrence I mentioned is the only one where a sentence can be found after the emoticon), is very low. You can search for “:(” on the page of the blog to find the examples I am talking about.

I’m not sure whether this is sufficiently important for a new discussion to be started about it, but I think it should be brought up if any discussion about archive.today arises or is still going on. ― Rastus Vernon (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Create an OpenCart article

Hello,

I would like to create an OpenCart article. I have the draft written, although wikipedia would not let me post without an administrators permission.

I would appreciate it if you unlock the article so I can post it for the ever expanding community. The article does not contain advertising and it is pure 100% information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What has changed since the last deletion discussion, Elkonabike?—Kww(talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have collected much more information on the topic based on research on what other E-commerce solutions feature as information. Still I do not understand why you and others are preventing and deleting any article on OpenCart. I saw the article has been deleted 2-3 times before. This is a free e-commerce system, actually the world's 3rd most popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another article listing the main three. Please unblock creation and allow the community to decide whether an article can exist? Greenman (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at http://builtwith.com/ecommerce/ OpenCart is ahead of the free software ZenCart and Prestashop, both of which have articles. It is also ahead of many of the proprietary software listed at Comparison of shopping cart software, most of which appear to have been written by people closely involved in the business. Greenman (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Come back when you have a number of reliable sources (not blogs) that directly address OpenCart in depth. Please do not come back before then.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have linked to builtwith.com, which is an industry standard metrics company. You are //personally// and unilaterally preventing the creation of an article on one of the most popular tools out there. Why? You are blocking any kind of community input,and have not responded to others who have wanted to create the article. Please do not tell me to "go away" when you have been obstructing progress on this matter. At least one editor who claimed to have sources has been chased away by your lack of response. Your judgement in this matter is highly suspect, so I would request that you step aside and let the community decide. Greenman (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the community already has decided. I'm simply enforcing that will.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, if you look at the constant stream of requests to create that article, you may realise that you are obstructing their will, not enforcing it. Most editors do not have the technical knowledge to realise that in this case they have to personally approach an individual to ask for permission to edit. Therefore it hits a brick wall and there is no further discussion. In any regular article, it would be created, and discussion would ensue from there. You are being disingenuous in claiming that a deletion discussion from 2009 represents a "community decision", when so much activity has been going on on the relevant pages. I have presented you evidence that the software is amongst the most popular in use. Your generalisation of all previous evidence as a "blog" is a bit like claiming Huffington Post is a blog. Strictly speaking true, but of little relevance when what's important is how noteworthy the source is in the field. I respectively ask you to recognise that as you seem to have no particular interest or expertise in the topic (as judged by your lack of contribution to anything e-commerce related) and to step aside to allow the interested community to contribute. Greenman (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

PC2

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

The number of awards won by the artist was more than 174 before the addition of Destiny's Child awards were added months ago. Secondly, many of the awards by the individual artist listed includes awards won by Destiny's Child. The number of awards is no where near inflated and both of us are just as capable of providing sources to each award. I will edit the page once again including awards won by Destiny's Child regardless of whether I will be blocked from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC Media check

Kww,

I am looking to take the Demi Lovato and Katy Perry articles to FA at some point within the next month, and was wondering: could you perform media checks for images and such when nominated? Given your frequent work at Demi (and other Disney-related articles), I can see why personal commentary on prose and such probably wouldn't be appropriate during an FAC for her, but would that make you ineligible for media-checking? If you can't do such checks, please refer me to someone who can.

Thank you in advance. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

David Guetta discography

There is an anonymous IP who keeps removing singles from tables at David Guetta discography without giving any explanation in edit summaries, some of recent removals are these, 1, 2. I tried to warn him/her on the user's talk twice 1, 2, but he/she deletes the warnings and goes back to the article and keeps removing content. The request for semi-protection was declined. Maybe you could take a look.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Addressed it with a filter. Let me know if you see him hop IPs.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I will.--Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. I am aware I have invoked WP:IAR in closing this, but as there is not a clear consensus to run a bot to remove all the links (from the BFRA and RfC discussions), I feel the close is appropriate. Please let me know if you feel differently. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake

Hello. Why are you deleting the sections of this article? Well, i understand that there are not links but it dosen't mean that we should delete the section. If you don't know then there's a template which you can put when the article hasn't sources. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Awards

There is a huge amount of unsourced entries on the List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim page. I think you should take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.133.76 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick question

I'm not looking for any action, just an opinion. Do you think the highlighting done on this Talk page is a help or a hindrance? It's being presented as lifting the contributions of others above the din of the two conflicting editors. I have my own opinion about what to do next but I'm looking for a little outside insight and you are one of the admins I remember being above reproach. Padillah (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim

There is still a lot of false and unsourced information on this page. An example being the BMI and ASCAAP awards. How did one receive awards for the same songs in the same years, when an artist can only be associated with one organisation at a time? A lot of the sourced awards link to the same Australian google book that doesn't have anything to do with the claimed awards. I will try and find reliable sources for the claims and help in any way you would like me to. Just a warning, I have had previous run ins with this particular editor, from experience he will likely revert your edits. KaneZolanski (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be very specific, KaneZolanski. If you can demonstrate specific line items that he inserted with sources that didn't corroborate them, I'll either put him on final warning or block him right now.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

One example, in the ASCAAP Pop Awards section. The source provided honours 50 Cent for his contribution to Magic Stick. It does not award, mention or even credit Lil Kim. Citation 9 awards Scott Scorch as song writer of the year. There is no reference to Lil' Kim in the source provided. There are a lot more examples of this and there is a large portion of awards that have no source at all. KaneZolanski (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Those come under the class of what I could consider to be good-faith confusion. I've removed them, and hopefully that will be the end of it. I see this in articles all the time, where people try to give singers and actors credit for awards that belong to writers and producers. Do you have any cases where it's clearly a bad-faith edit, KaneZolanski? Please don't feel like I'm dismissing your concerns: I'm not. I just can't take action if there's a good-faith explanation for the problem.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will look into this further. An example of the editor inserting lies is the ASCAAP Pop Music Awards. He claims the Lady Marmalade won Song of the Year, when in fact Dido won that year, as backed up by this source. http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2002/song.aspx. Also, the ASCAAP Pop Honourees Award was awarded to Kenny Nolan for his work on Lady Marmalade. I have deleted these off of the page. KaneZolanski (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The amount of false information on this page is outstanding. I'm removing all of the false and inaccurate claims, chances are they are going to be reverted by the editor. It's impossible to give any other reasons besides false in the edit summaries. I've searched the sources provided and done individual research and they still come back false. It's a shame.KaneZolanski (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to give the editor time to insert necessary citations using the tag. Hopefully he can find sources to back up these claims. KaneZolanski (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another example of a completely made up received award. The sources only state that Christina won for Best International Female. Nothing at all to do with the song. Channel V Thailand Music Video Awards

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2002	"Lady Marmalade" (with Christina Aguilera, Pink & Mýa)	Popular Duo/Group Video	Won

Made up award title and award, She co-hosted the event. She didn't receive an award. Children Uniting Nations

Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2007	Lil' Kim	Crystal Dove Award: Inspiring Our Children to Dream	Won

KaneZolanski (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are just a couple of the TENS of blatant false lies and information. For example the lie I'm currently deleting is from The Source Awards. Where it is claimed that Lil Kim won for best female rap collaboration in 2004. This source, from billboard, shows the award going to Remy Ma. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/66144/2004-source-hip-hop-music-awards-winners. There are so many false claims that i have probably skipped past some without realising. This article needs to be looked over from start to finish, and the editor who has inserted these lies needs to be banned from altering this page. KaneZolanski (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done enough I can for one night. I would recommend looking over the sources for the ASCAP Awards. The chances of all my edits being reverted by the editor are high. KaneZolanski (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj

if you could take a closer look on what is sourced and unsourced on this article to avoid an article "war" it would be appreciated, as I have looked though and found data that may be false being reverted without citations, thanks.—9thinning001(talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

The sockpuppet is back. Same behaviour as before. In the past there was some suspected IP socking too. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What evidence would you like to present of your accusations? It appears to me you would provide some if you had it. I'm beginning to suspect you just want to justify your disruptive edits, which I see have gotten you blocked many times in the past. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I arrived here because Acupuncture happened to be at the top of my watchlist where I saw this edit with edit summary "reverting disruptive edit. Don't bite the newbies" from an account that is under two days old. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

at the top of the talk pages it says, "Please be welcoming of newcomers". When you click on it, it says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So I'm not allowed to say don't bite me because I'm a newbie? Why is everyone being so combative?Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

and I arrived at this page because I was looking at quackguru's editing history and noticed his post here. I also noticed he has been blocked and banned numerous times for disruptive editing, edit warring, and even warned not to edit war at all. He has been told, and I think by you, that the three revert rule he warned me about didn't apply to him. He's not allowed to revert even less than three times based on his editing history. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And you think ignoring me is a good idea? You are continuing to make disruptive edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are being your own worst enemy again. I'm aware. I'm watching. I'm contemplating what, if anything, to do. Making my orange bar flash every few minutes will not make me go faster.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

You might be interested in giving input here. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Can you please give Favre1fan93 a final warning for re-adding archive.is links after they have been removed? Oh and just a heads up Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 Werieth (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you have a word with STATicVapor ? They persist to editwar archive.is links back into articles. Werieth (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time

Hi. If you believe this to be a copyvio, then why do we have full lists of films like AFI 100?? I strongly suggest you take a look in Category:Top film lists. The films were put in chronological order anyway. I can see that some articles only pick the top 10 though. Can you at least restore the list to my user space? If I simply have a list of films and remove mention of the source then it's hardly copyrightable. That Indian newspaper doesn't own the rights to the film titles. I thought it a valuable list of notable Indian films which I personally found useful, given that most lists are Anglo centric and that it would be useful for the Indian project to find articles to develop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation and, as such, cannot be restored. If you reproduce the list without crediting the source, that still violates the copyright (and I have a hard time believing that you don't know that). The AFI list has an OTRS ticket (2007041310002766) releasing its contents. As for any other such lists that you encounter, delete them on sight.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty crazy. I could draw up a list of the 100 films in any random order which happened to be cited in that list on this talk page and that wouldn't make it a copyvio if I added more titles to it from the Indian group input. It would simply be a list of films,The newspaper does NOT own the rights to the titles of films and the idea that they would have the power to the titles of the films is ludicrous. Where would this silliness stop? Not permitted to mention Scorsese's favourite films because he owns the copyright to it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the objective inclusion criteria that guides the law. When the compilation criteria is based on an opinion, a value is placed on the opinion, and thus copyright law protects that value. If you were to build a list, say, of "Indian films that placed on three or more lists of Greatest Films", that would have an objective inclusion criterion and would not be protected. There are ways to get fairly close to where you want to be.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you send me the list by email then and I'll revise it with different entries and put in my own user space so it isn't a vio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Hey, just a heads up on the reverts between you and SergiSmiler, the credits on her Bangerz album does list her as a writer to some of the songs. Would that not qualify her as a songwriter? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I link to singer-songwriter. Miley Cyrus does not practice a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I never saw your edit summary about the singer-songwriter article. I only saw the last revert thinking it was the first, so nevermind. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

See Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 Werieth (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I worked with him on getting a neutral phrasing in place. There was a little bit of surprise in the timing, but over all, I think it's probably a good idea to either reaffirm or deny the existing RFC consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please have a word with him, he is edit warring again on Dishonored. Werieth (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Let It Go

Hi Kevin, I know that you are fairly experienced in terms of music articles, chart info, and radio release dates, so maybe you could look at this discussion regarding the radio and maxi single release of this song and give your input? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is the problem in a nutshell the problem is, Forbidden and several other users are arguing with reliable sources and not assuming good faith and criticizing Chase and me for point out that they have been making weak points as to why the infobox should not reflect the Menzel's version has been released as a single. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User page

Actually, the only page a blocked user can edit is their talk page (unless that access is specifically removed...). Sandbox, user page and all sub-pages are out of bounds. I can't find a reference for this - it must be laid down somewhere, surely. That's how it works, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Boostedmx5

Can you please explain why yoou think that Boostedmx5 is a sockpuppet? The user is asking to be unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Vivint, which was beset by sockpuppets, I came to the conclusion that Boostedmx5, The Voice of Reason 9999, Honestabe7777, and Joeearnest were all the same editor. I'd get a checkuser run before unblocking any of them, עוד מישהו.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please, when you block a user for sockpuppetry, leave some reasonable indication as to who the other accounts are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I was hoping you might be able to give me some insight as to what this message by GoFormer was about? I followed the link and haven't seen my username anywhere, so I'm a little confused. Mayast (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Its a known sock master who persists in harassing me. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply, Kww. Mayast (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating articles that are creation protected with loopholes

That was probably a confusing subject, but I have a question relating to it. An editor has recently created an article for an actress named Madison lintz (she was on The Walking Dead). Note the lowercase "l". This editor has bypassed a creation-protected page at Madison Lintz and created the article. I don't exactly know what to flag it as to mark it for deletion (it only contains sources to AMC's website and her parents' blog) so I come to you. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Madison Lintz page

Hi, so I saw that you recently deleted the page Madison lintz because based on WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion. I've been working on it recently and am assured that the last revision of the article has fixed the problems that led to the article's deletion last time around. I'd like to see the article reinstated because of this, thanks for your time.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When it gets rightly deleted once, don't ever immediately re-create it in articlespace. User WP:AFC or a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. If and only if it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you then approach a wisened admin to review and possibly move into articlespace for you. Doing anything else (like recreating under a slightly different name) can lead to a block for disruption. the panda ₯’ 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS (Bangerz)

Can you watch it with the page? User:SergiSmiler undid its revision, though I undid it back. 'Composition' section says hip hop elements that is not the same thing. 183.171.161.153 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion

I provided the evidence here of a block evasion. Neuraxis calls me Quack[14]. This appears to be Déjà vu[15] again per WP:DUCK. Both Neuraxis[16][17] and CorticoSpinal[18][19] called me Quack and both share the same POV according to the evidence. Neuraxis was not here to build an encyclopedia. Both accounts also have similar names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.235.143.175

Suspected sock of Neuraxis/DVMt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64

Suspected sock of CorticoSpinal.

Both IPs originate from Ontario, Canada and both IPs were used for IP socking.

I read you explained that: It's policy: WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Where a sock account is used to violate his block, it is normal procedure to revert the edits. This is not my rule, it is Wikipedia's consensus.

Here is the issue: The suspected sock made a lot of changes against consensus and restored a page that was merged into Chiropractic education. The page was a redirect for 4 years.

I was thinking about reporting this or discussing this on the talk page but your comment on my talk page suggested you want to review things like this that may require admins to review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, QuackGuru, I strongly suggest that you fly these things by me. Can you give the page that was restored? I'm queasy about claiming we know enough about DVMt to say that we absolutely know that he was CorticoSpinal, so I want to be certain you have a good case made before anyone starts taking actions based on believing that he is. I'll review the CorticoSpinal connection more thoroughly, and see how comfortable I feel about the case.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis made changes to the Chiropractor page. You can review the edit history of the page to see that back in 2009 there was consensus for a merge and the page was redirected. In 2013 is when the changes started. I don't understand why he blanked the page in one if his edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been too many subsequent edits by valid editors for WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad to be applied any more, even if we could prove that CorticoSpinal was Neuraxis. That doesn't mean that you can't try redirecting it now that Neuraxis is blocked. It seems like he was the only editor fighting the redirect. If it gets put back, don't edit war over it.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Side note: Your talk page is moving way to the right. I'll try to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI

I was going to add User:Snake&Staff to the current SPI report.

See this edit and see this edit. Both accounts removed the word "deaths" from the lede. This is the source in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Too old for checkuser to be of any use and pretty clearly a throwaway sock. I went ahead and blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to the SPI report:

The IP 72.33.63.1 added the word "characterized" on June 4, 2014 and later on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede.[20][21] The wording "stated" is neutral rather than the word "characterized".

I think this is evidence that can be submitted to SPI. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Too weak to submit, especially since Middle8 appears to be competent with English and the IP clearly is not.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Feuds

I would like to find out your input about the "Feud" section on the Nicki Minaj page. I think that the addition of Foxy Brown and Remy Ma to that section was not needed because Minaj was not involved in any way with what is detailed there. Its basically just speculations and assumptions from different websites/blogs and no real connection to an actual "Feud", thus making the section false and making people believe there was an actual feud between them which is not the case. It was already discussed on the talk page but the reason they gave for it being there was that it had it had "credible sources". So do you think it should be classified as feuds even though Minaj has absolutely nothing to do with information given, whether verbally or physically. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's in an article about a living person and sourced only to a blog, you can always delete it, JACUBANHELADO.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE report

I previously informed Middle 8 of the sanctions and about 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page. Middle 8 was just notified of the sanctions again by User:Robert McClenon but he is continuing to edit war:

Middle 8 was previously edit warring over the specific numbers.[22][23][24][25] On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede5:40, 25 June 201401:09, 4 July 2014 and on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "described" to the lede.11:55, 12 May 201423:57, 4 July 2014

I think this can be reported to AE or I can let you handle this situation. You wanted me to run things like this before I make a report. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR violation. I will discuss it with Middle 8.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Certification Table Entry

Hi Kww, I have left some messages regarding a few issues for the certification template at the talk page of the above. Can you please take a look? If you are not the concerned person for making these changes, can you please direct me to someone who should? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Punkox, again?

Hi Kevin. These edits are very similar to his. He's been repeatedly adding sales from Sony Japan's website (which are inflated, of course. It says it's sold 100K when original sales stand at 40K). Can you take a look? Ryoga (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He's been adding fake certifications, again Kevin. Ryoga (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to submit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Middle 8 was recently warned for editing against consensus at the acupuncture page. Now User:Middle made changes against a clear consensus again with another sentence in the lede. Middle 8 unilaterally restored the old wording that was previously rejected. The previous wording was discussed in detail at Talk:Acupuncture#Original research again and the previous wording is supported by the source. Middle claims the wording is not supported by the source. (This was similar to a previous edit where he claimed the wording was unsourced. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#More re TCM .26 pseudoscience wording. He claimed on his talk page "(I don't remember why I also deleted the "with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments", but as you can see, somebody else restored it, which I didn't contest.)"[26]) Doc James made the specific proposal on the talk page.[27] I made the proposal in mainspace and this was also supported by another editor[28]. The change to the lede by Middle 8 was clearly against consensus according to the diffs presented.[29][30][31][32]

With your permission I would like to submit this to arbitration (or you can decide if anything should be done). I was told to run this by an admin first as you know. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 deleted sourced text claiming" per WP:BRD, rv series of bold edits by QuackGuru to version by Jmh649 at 08:50, 7 July 2014. Similar situation as Moffet; source comments on subset of literature reviewed, & doesn't support general statement. Talk: Special:Diff/616080486/616080558. The text is sourced using a systematic review of systematic reviews. Middle 8 was being disingenuous on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Another convenience break. He was also being disruptive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture again.

I would like to submit this, along with recent past disruption, to WP:AE or you can decide what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I out of line or...?

Hey Kevin, how are things? In my 9+ years on Wikipedia this is probably the most ridiculous disagreement I've ever had with someone, but can you keep a temporary eye on List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)? In particular, the week of April 19: Billboard listed all three artists equally, names separated by commas; it has been displayed as such for months... however now User talk:Afavoritaweb is insisting that the names be formatted as "featuring", claiming that is the correct way to format names. The song's article lists the artists with "featuring" (although I think that is incorrect, as the single's cover art does not say "featuring" anywhere), and my point is just to keep things as was shown in Billboard (any of the source links will confirm this). Anyhoo, we've been back and forth a few times and I saw that you had some past history with this user, so I thought I'd ask for your assistance. Oh, and if you think that I'm being too critical here just let me know and I'll drop it... I can't believe I've even spent this much time on it already but, ya know........ - eo (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I've mentioned the case you filed regarding office actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MediaViewer RfC. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Charts

Original text on talk page Template talk:Singlechart: Greece (Greece Digital Songs), Lebanon (The Official Lebanese Top 20), Mexico (Moniter Latino) and Turkey (Turkish Single Charts) still need a entry. I've noticed that a lot of mainstream singles have chart entries of at least one of these countries.--Kimberlylambert (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To get an entry, there needs to be a stable archive and a way to compute the URL for the archive entry from the date.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me with this? I'm trying to implement the four nations into it.--Kimberlylambert (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Not relevant to the lead?

A million Trini's would disagree, as would Nicki herself the panda ₯’ 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage 5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter 620

I'm not sure this is doing what it's supposed to. E.g. why was this disallowed? Or this one? Both are valid corrections to the article, the same change was recently made per request at Talk:New York City. Other filter hits appear to be from users blanking material. Disruptive, perhaps, but not consistent with the intent of the filter, right? I've changed it back to log-only, for now. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could also disable Special:AbuseFilter/616? It's been nearly a month since the last hit. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

86.138.231.134's new account Special:Contributions/Postcodez

Sorry for interrupt. IP's new account is editing non-stop. It was the same edit on Talk:808s & Heartbreak. 183.171.164.185 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Amigoe

Hello Kww. I created the article on the Amigoe in order to get more information on its history and circulation (so that other editors can also take a look and analyze its reliability). Luckily, but strangely, the Spanish Wikipedia had an article on it; I have managed to translate it and include a couple of sources in English. You seem to have a better understanding of the newspaper, and think it would be helpful if you could add some information to the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find sources for. My familiarity with it is primarily from simply being a reader. While I preferred the Antilliaans Dagblad, I would read the Amigoe on occasion. I wish I had had the foresight to save the article we are discussing.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak

Hey Kww, minutes after the page protection ended the socks returned to edit war about the genre. STATic message me! 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In cricket they call it "Hitting a Big 6"

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your astute observation on Jimbotalk: "The WMF seems to be implementing features that make things 'modern' without sufficient engagement with the community to make sure that they will actually improve things and without spending time understanding the editing flow. Combine that with the dismissive attitude towards 'power users' and you have a breeding ground for problems. Quite simply, there's nothing about Media Viewer that I could describe as an "improvement" unless you presume the reason I want to examine the image is to get a larger version of the image, which I rarely want to do. Flow actually seems designed to intentionally interfere with our normal communication methods, ostensibly on the grounds that the reason people have a hard time joining the community is that editing talk pages is hard. In practice, it seems to be designed to encourage brief, superficial discussion without allowing us to branch into subtopics as easily." Kudos. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also

Kevin, please drop me an email if you get a chance. Talk pages don't swing it for this. ShoeHutch@gmail.com Thanks, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I think it is time to file a SPI

• See this edit by the Klocek sock account deleting text from the Nature source.
• See this edit by Khawar.nehal making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source. The suspicious account knows something about arabic.[33]
• See this edit by Technophant deleting sourced text from the Quackwatch source. On Technophant user page I remember reading he speaks a little arabic and he edits articles related to arabic.
• See this edit by Ricflairsbutt making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source.
• Acuhealth wrote: I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science.[34] Acuhealth deleted "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy"[35]
• Technophant deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."[36]
• Stillwaterising also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."[37]
• Technophant is actually Stillwaterising.[38][39]
• Stillwaterising is from Texas.[40] The IP sock is also from Texas.[41] See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
• Stillwaterising created the Myofascial meridians article[42] Technophant restores text originally written by Stillwaterising.[43]
• Technophant reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. Milliongoldcoinpoint also reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. Both reports were not a 3RR violation.
• Technophant violated 3RR at acupuncture.[44] Klocek also violated 3RR at acupuncture See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive246#User:Klocek reported by User:Jmh649 .28Result: Blocked.29.
• Technophant added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.[45] Ricflairsbutt also added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.[46]
• With this new evidence I found there is definitely evidence of quacking. I request permission to file a SPI report. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

QG, your evidence linking to Klocek is too weak. Your evidence linking Technophant to Stillwaterising is rock solid, but there's no evidence of a crime: your one diff of Technophant restoring an edit by Stillwaterising isn't going to do anything because the linkage was declared. I've warned Stillwaterising that [User_talk:Stillwaterising#Topic_ban the topic ban is still in effect]. Unless you can come up with a stronger linkage to Klocek, I think that's enough for now.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant deleted text on July 17, 2014[47] but previously on September 12, 2012 Stillwaterising deleted the same sentence (Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.).[48] I asked him if he deleted the sentence accidentally but rather than collaborate he banned me from his talk page.

The topic ban was on July 21. To avoid public scrutiny Stillwaterising deleted the connection to the other account, and he rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23. He then unjoined the project with the other account on July 24.

If you can see this edit, he added the text Clean start to his user page in late July of 2014. It was removed right after the topic ban and he then requesting speedy deletion of his user page. I think he deleted his user page to hide he was using another account. The only way to confirm the events with his user page is to have his user page history restored. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this and this. Both accounts know something about pharma. A checkuser is the best way to clarify this matter IMO. My gut is telling me this is the original account. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny things are happening again. This edit added an image and now this edit changed the image. I don't know what to believe anymore. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant and Stillwaterising are the same person.[49][50]

Stillwaterising is from Texas.[51] The previous IP sock is also from Texas.[52] See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129

The edit by the IP appears to be IP socking. The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92 I think a SPI would clarify this matter.

The IP 71.40.3.92 calls User:BullRangifer a "pit bulldog" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=prev&oldid=618267342

It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 claims "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern."[53]

Technophant calls BullRangifer "The Pit Bull" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=next&oldid=618435864

There appears to be evidence of socking. I request to submit this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. They can check for sleeper accounts. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No doubt that it is Technophant. Unfortunately, it precedes my last block of him. I'm watching for repetitions.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you think there is no doubt it is him I will go ahead and file a case for the connection with the other Texas sock that is connected to Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You can add this IP to the list. A very feeble attempt to seem foreign. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible ban violation

Possible topic ban violation again. He put it aside and then created an attack page against me and other editors. I MFDed it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox2. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/93.186.23.82

Quite similar with Special:Contributions/93.186.23.96, she repeatedly added questionable source on Stay (Rihanna song). Huh Magazine (UK) did not have wiki page, and confused with huH (American magazine). 183.171.171.217 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Stillwaterising/Technophant/My Core Competency is Competency

Hello Kww, I'm a bit confused--It looks like per the conversation here (link) that Technophant is stating that they are an alternate account of Stillwaterising, but in that discussion you make reference to this edit which seems to indicate that Technophant is an alternate account of My Core Competency is Competency. Can you please help explain how these accounts are related? Thanks... Zad68 03:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't focused on the bit with My Core Competency is Competency. I'll look into that. What I had noticed, Zad68, was this bit:"[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] • [[User_talk:Technophant|Talk]] • (formerly ([[User:Stillwaterising|Stillwaterising]])".—Kww(talk) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the part of the edit pertaining to My Core Competency is Compency was just a formatting fix: it was the only element of the list with a signature format instead of a bullet format.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes that makes sense, my misinterpretation, thanks. Zad68 03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's all it was. And in case anybody is wondering I did inform a checkuser when creating the Technophant account and no I have never created or used any others. Stillwaterising (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghost Stories (Coldplay album)

The album's genre from source is electronica, but User:FilBenLeafBoy added alternative rock two times, however the user noted that saying do not remove alternative rock unless discuss on talk page. 183.171.161.83 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion/content

Hi. Could you weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception? It concerns whether a line detailing a certain critic's grade is off-topic or inappropriate to include. Dan56 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

FAC

Kww, I'm not sure how involved you've been with the Katy Perry article overall, but she currently is at FAC and your help/input would be highly appreciated. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"broadly construed"

You noted Technophant's attempt to remove that language in your comment here, but have accepted his version here.

It's a community topic ban, and the original language did include "broadly construed", so that does need to be restored.

Unfortunately, in the confusion and discussion with Technophant during his attempts to dictate the wording of his topic ban, Adjwilley's comment here left out those words:

• Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

This version by Adjwilley is more accurate and includes the words "broadly construed" (my bold below):

• Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A banned editor should not be dictating the terms of their ban (although I have no objection to adding the WP:BANEX language), nor have total control of their talk page when it is being used by the community for a community discussion. (My comments here should be on that page, not on this talk page.)

Under those conditions, legitimate comments should not be removed by the banned editor, nor the banned editor allowed to ban his accusers from his talk page, especially since this is part of the battlefield behavior which got him in trouble in the first place. During that time period, the page has effectively become the community's page for discussion of the issues, and all involved parties have a right to comment, as long as they are civil. The types of denials, attacks on accusers, and argumentation we've seen from Technophant would usually have resulted in a removal of talk page access, but that didn't happen.

My comment was quite civil, but he removed it [54][55]. That's not right. Since when do we reward disruptive editors?

He also repeatedly removed (whitewashing the page) and rearranged content (most of it his own comments) during these discussions, making it confusing because comments were made based on other comments which were no longer visible. He even managed to put a few comments in the wrong chronological order. I suggest that a guideline/policy be made for such discussions to the effect that no major archiving should occur during that time. Only legitimate and minor refactoring should be allowed, usually using strikethrough, and with good edit summaries. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also noteworthy to mention that he has not yet shown any understanding for why he was topic banned or blocked. Nothing at all. All we have seen is self-defense and attacks on his critics. It's all everybody else's fault but his own. With that attitude I am not optimistic. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

YGM ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user removing archive.is

Hi Kww. Another user has come by and is continuing to remove archive.is links while the RfC is happening. They are User:Tabit Harik. See their contributions. If they can be blocked like the other users you had to deal with once the RfC had opened, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also User:Archive Jihad is doing the same thing. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this topic here. It's been awhile since I have seen it and my memory may be wrong, but didn't a previous RfC (or other decision) decide to let bots and editors delete all those links? I wasn't aware there was another RfC in progress. What's happening? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: See Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the RFC was closed, it seemed quite short and I don't know how well broadcast it was? I don't know, what is the stage from here? Also, just to give you an idea of why I like archive.is, I have been hunting for the following source for 3 weeks, the original link is dead, web.archive had abandoned its snapshot altogether, you couldn't make a new archive nor see the original. Yet Archive.is has a snapshot of it, taken from the web.archive archive. This information that I have scoured and scoured for and am unable to find a replacement for can now be used because of archive.is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor has no learning curve and is unintentionally being destructive

Jayaguru-Shishya was notified of the discretionary sanctions on April 4, 2014.

Past behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya:

I think there was a specific reason Jayaguru-Shishya decided to edit the chiropractic article. Jayaguru-Shishya obviously noticed the following contributions by Kshilts: Kshilts deleted pseudoscientific[56] and other text from the chiropractic lede[57][58][59]

Kshilts wrote on March 31, 2014 "I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked." But it was not Kshilts who put together references for the lede. It was Jayaguru-Shishya. What could possibly be his motivation for coming to the chiropractic article. Maybe Jayaguru-Shishya got upset at Mann jess.[60][61] and noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute with Kshilts. He probably noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute at chiropractic in late March of 2014.[62]

Shortly thereafter, on April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[63] that failed V.[64] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[65] and the text did not summarise the body. He wrote "I was trying to restore some contributions by Kshilts."[66] Jayaguru-Shishya never acknowledged he did anything wrong with adding OR to the lede. He also unintentionally ignored the past discussion in late March of 2014. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Lead changes.

Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[67] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at alternative medicine articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[68] where there was no consensus in the first place.[69][70][71] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[72] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[73] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment.

Jayaguru-Shishya restored text that was outdated POV at the acupuncture article. The outdated source from 1997 has a warning in red that explains the source is outdated.[74] Only after it was deleted again he agreed it was reasonable to delete it. There was an objection to the misplaced text but it was restored against consensus by Jayaguru-Shishya. The edit summary was "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it: WP:CON "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections..." <- no objections so far, and I'm in support | Also: (talk page)"[75] So what is the problem? He should check the source first to verify it is reliable rather than restoring disputed text.

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[76] Jayaguru-Shishya commented again on the talk page to support Middle8's edit without any specific explanation of his own: "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article."[77] Jayaguru-Shishya did not give a specific explanation for this revert to Middle's version that was presented out of content. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Original research in the article again.

Recent behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya at chiropractic:

Now there is another content dispute at chiropractic where Jayaguru-Shishya reverts to the version by Kshilts. I tagged the original research. The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)".[78] The OR and undueweight was restored. After the edit was reverted again[79] Jayaguru-Shishya blinding restored the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. He claims "I didn't add anything" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. He ignored the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my previous comment on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. He claims "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above."[80] But he is again not addressing the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus."[81] See Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes. Jayaguru-Shishya has a repeated pattern of incompetent editing and is failing to get the point. I would like to submit this to WP:AE or you can evaluate the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of tit-for-tat going on: User talk:John#QuackGuru (again) and a previous User talk:John#Our friend User:QuackGuru again Jim1138 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S. blocked

Please see this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Help from admin

Hi. Since you're an admin, could you address this personal attack somehow? Because I've addressed the editor's inaccurate and misleading use of a source, heavy-handed use of quotes, and grammatical error in both my edit summaries and responses to the article's talk page, articulated it fully, only to get a personal attack and accusation of ownership. Please revert them, address them, or something, because I'm itching to revert him myself, but don't want to have another edit war with someone nitpicking my prose. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, this article was protected for TFA by Bencherlite, so maybe protecting it from new users (they've been around for since 15 July. Dan56 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See, that's WP:OWN, Dan. Just because I am newer doesn't mean I can't edit your article. There are no grammatical errors in my edits; you are mistaken. Kww, please take a good look at the actual diff before deciding if Dan is right to jump all over me. MaximumEdison (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice that he said: "[I] don't want to have another edit war with someone nitpicking my prose"?(unlike Wikipedia articles, the emphasis is mine) MaximumEdison (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"...what you had...". The emphasis is yours. Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww, this may be a sock of Jazzerino, blocked for hounding and harassing me at articles I'm a significant contributor at, starting with Misterioso (User talk:Jazzerino). What led me to believe this have not been the tedious syntax changes at Misterioso (which is what started Jazzerino's behavior), or the WP:OWN accusations littered like by Jazzerino at their talk page and his edit summaries reverting me, but how this revision regarding "choppy sentences" by Jazzerino at Misterioso is the exact change as this change regarding the same "choppy" sentences by MaximumEdison. Quite eerie. Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Kww, thanks for your diligence. I appreciate it. Dan56, I'm sorry that you got a sock master on your tail. I'm going to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, obviously. It doesn't alleviate all of my concerns, at least not immediately, but you'll have noted that mine were much less numerous than those of Harmelodix, for whom I have no love. I'd never run into this Jazzerino character--if you had suspicions already, though, why didn't you bring them up earlier? Or didn't you suspect them until now? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Vanillagreek

Can you sockpuppet him/her? He/she is User:MariaJaydHicky's new account. 183.171.161.9 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted meatpuppetry, removal of comment in block discussion by User:Technophant

Greetings Kww. While I hesitate to increase my involvement in this situation I feel the issue may be serious enough to warrant action. My concerns are twofold.

First is the attempt to engage in meatpuppetry by discussing and proposing edits to pages from which the user is blocked including off wiki activity

• 11:30, 29 July 2014 "more about maps"
• 00:48, 4 August 2014 "restoration of bad faith removal"
• 00:26, 5 August 2014 "last edit for a while, add MrBill3 to banned user list"
• 00:12, 5 August 2014 "ok, here's my 2cents"
• 03:49, 5 August 2014 ""
• 06:08, 5 August 2014 ""

Second is the removal of a post providing evidence of this from the section on discussion of block review

• 00:12, 5 August 2014 "Undid revision 619784338 by MrBill3 (talk) let it go"

This is of particular concern as I am under the impression it is appropriate to post to a user's talk page in discussion of blocks, bans, NB filings etc. and not appropriate to refactor others comments in such discussions. I am sure you are aware that multiple comments have been refactored in several discussions of this kind. There has also been removal of block reviews and multiple refactoring of block review requests. I don't think this editor is demonstrating a willingness to work within PAG, engage collaboratively or genuinely attempt to improve the encyclopedia.

Sorry to bring this to your talk page as I am sure you have better things to do. If this should be the subject of an ANI filing or some other process please let me know. Thank you for your contributions to WP. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on this, but my impression right now is that doing nothing is the best thing. No admin is likely to unblock him and his efforts at meatpuppeting have been limited. There's not enough meat there to warrant remove talk-page access at this time. I've left a small note at Pc123ct1's talk page about proxying.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww: Thank you for your message. I was aware of that policy and it never entered my head in this instance. The emails will be personal, and if he attempted to edit through me, of course I would resist it. I can understand your caution and take your message in the spirit it was made, but from my experience of him on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, I cannot imagine for a minute that he would attempt this. He asked me to email, and I had been wanting to for a while anyway, but didn't know how to (am fairly new to editing in Wikipedia). On those pages, since I began editing there in early June, I have found him nothing but a helpful and vigilant editor who contributed a lot to improving the article, without any edit-warring or disputes with others, and everything that has happened recently has come as a very big surprise. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww: I don't think an email exchange will be sustained. All I have had is more of the same as on his Talk page (grievances). --P123ct1 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have had more emails, but no meatpuppetry involved! But it is obvious he is keen to get back to editing the pages we share work on (non-medical), so please give him a chance. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard

Here, you can see the verdict of WP:RSN regarding the 1895 published book. I will therefore remove it from the article. If you have any concerns, please, kindly have them resolved in the noticeboard.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pinkprint

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for "The Pink Print" to the "The Pinkprint". Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728). Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014. Thank you for your time, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

Now I better understand why...

I'm surprised and bothered that such a simple RfC has yet to create any sort of consensus on the Natalee Holloway matter. I can't understand why either, as I personally find the topic quite interesting (from an academic standpoint, but also for the mystery). Nonetheless, this also makes me consider that it wasn't necessarily Overagainst's long texts that made discussions complicated (other Wikipedians just don't really seem to care about the case). Let me know if you can think of anything else that can be done about it (maybe relisting the RfC and adding more categories to it?).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have a bit of a bias, MarshalN20, but I suspect that has a lot to do with why people tend to see an article ownership problem: there are occasional editors that get very emotional about a point and only a few editors that care enough about the topic to fend them off. I see the problem with the particular RFC is that you didn't ask a very interesting question. Nearly everyone would agree that JvdS's conviction in Peru deserves to be mentioned. The point of disagreement is whether mentioning it in the lead presents an WP:UNDUE issue. I believe it does, because it creates an expectation that of course JvdS must have killed Natalee too. Others do not, but that may be because they think it is obvious that JvdS killed Natalee too, so creating that expectation in the reader's mind doesn't seem to be a problem.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is about the criminologists' (etc.) opinion and its relevance in the section on Peru. This is not the lead question. I'm concerned now that the RfC question really is that confusing; but, maybe you made a minor misread of it? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I do understand what you mean about the lead question, and will make sure to mention it clearly when presenting an RfC for it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you have expanded it from the initial version that I read. It's better, but still not focused on something that you will get strong opinions on.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Help... revisited

Sorry to bother again, but another editor--EastCoaster007--whose account creation coincided with others after Jazzerio's block has popped up again (with no edits since 22 June) on 6 August, a day after Harmelodix was blocked, to "notice ... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56" and take a random interest in files I uploaded to my GAs. What caught my eye mostly was the fact that this editor was one of those to make tedious, syntax changes ("tweak") to my FA Song of Innocence (around the same time as Jazzerino and Harmelodix in June). Another editor to devote so much time to reviewing me again. It may quack some, and at this point, I have very little good faith after the above nonsense. With only minor changes to articles starting during a few days in June, then returning with a concerted effort and focus on me only as it appears in their edit history, it seems really suspect. Dan56 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kesha videography

I noticed that the Kesha videography was deleted because It was created by a blocked user, but since Kesha has made 17 music video appearances, I think it should be restored, so her discography page isn't too long. If not, could I just have the text? Keshasbyotch (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but could you please take the time to reply?

Keshasbyotch (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't provide the text to any article created by a banned user, no. Personally, I doubt that a videography article is a good idea, but I have no strong feelings on the topic.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want the text, as I think it may have been a good article or at least a stub to improve on. She has made a lot of appearances in music videos, and since you have no strong feelings, please can I use it as a draft? To then improve on? Keshasbyotch (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I will not provide the text to any article created by a banned user.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: Please - hear me out, I'm trying my best to keep my argument within reason, and all I am asking you to do is do the same. Maybe that user was on to something, but I can't know that unless I see what was written, and then I can change it, so the article will not have any ties to the blocked user. You're right, it was a G5 violation and they don't deserve to have their article published, but I just need the text so it won't be THEIRS. It'll just mean I have enough information and referencing in one place to go on. Thank you.

Keshasbyotch (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: I find that you're being very unreasonable by not putting petty issues aside for no GOOD reason. Thank you, but I know when to arguing with someone like this is the same as talking to a wall. At least the wall would be helpful enough to give me something to lean on - you're just stubborn. Thank you for your utmost consideration. Keshasbyotch (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Deceptive behavior

Thanks for commenting on that deceptive behavior. What he wrote is an outright lie. I noticed it, but have been reticent to comment because of that improper "banning" from his talk page. Such banning should not be allowed in a situation as this. A blocked editor has fewer, not more, rights. His "request" has also now turned into a demand. That's very unfortunate. He's not in a position to demand anything. This is all what happens when talk page access isn't denied earlier. We end up with lots of crap to deal with. I see no evidence of repentance. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Helping Dan56 with content disputes

I'm no expert, but a quick glance at your contributions reveals that you assist Dan56 at several articles whenever he is in an edit war with others. Shouldn't you, as an admin, remain neutral regarding content? You helped remove hip-hop from 808 and Heartbreak, but Relevant magazine says, "This reviewer can say without a doubt that 808s & Heartbreak is the best Kanye West album to date, and the best hip-hop album of 2008." Why is "the best hip-hop album of 2008" not explicit enough? CountGramula (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I meant was, if you are going to intercede in content disputes and revert to Dan56's preferred version, then you shouldn't also be blocking everyone Dan56 gets into an edit war with. It seems like you either get involved with the content disputes as an involved editor, or you block suspected socks that edit war with Dan, but you shouldn't be doing both. CountGramula (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• CountGramula, not every revert is engagement with content. Kww has a right to revert (or mass rollback) edits by a sock. I don't always agree with such mass reverts, but accusing him of siding with one party in a content dispute while using his tools, that's incorrect. Dan56 is indeed followed, stalked, harassed by one sock puppeteer, one who fooled me too (User:Harmelodix). This is not to say that I side with Dan since often enough I disagree with him on content. In other words, I think this is a bit bigger than you suggest it is, and I doubt that Kww blocks everyone Dan disagrees with, since he hasn't blocked me yet. There is a big fat SPI on that puppet master and you should look at it, and you should give Kww some credit. If you want to re-revert individual edits that you think are positive, that's fine with me, and I hope that's fine with Kww also. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point I guess, and I don't doubt that Dan has his share of socks following him, but Kww has blocked several accounts that Dan56 edit wars with, restoring the article in question to Dan's preferred version. I just thought that they should either block socks or get involved in content disputes, but not both, as they appear as a personal admin bodyguard that blocks accounts and restores Dan's version. If I were an admin, I would do one or the other, but not both. I did look at the SPI, BTW, but I don't see any concrete evidence that any of these accounts have been technically connected to Jazzerino. Kww seems to have taken the position that anyone who edit wars with Dan56 must be either Jazzerino or MariaJaydHicky, but it looks like a vigilante style duck test that lacks technical evidence, which is a really good reason for Kww to reconsider their involvement with Dan56. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I am actually half-expecting to be blocked now too, since I made the fatal error of getting involved with Dan's uber-tedious content disputes. CountGramula (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I have several tests beyond "fights with Dan56" that I apply before blocking an editor. Unfortunately, you did fail one of them, so your account did wind up blocked. It would be nice if you simply went away and stopped wasting everyone's time. Ultimately, an established editor that didn't create dozens of accounts to fight with him will take care of any legitimate issues with his editing. All you are doing is making it more and more likely that such an editor would be erroneously blocked.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Alright then. Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Saban troll

Can you just turn his filter back on? He's posting the same screed to his user talk now that he's blocked, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made a new thread on ANI to address this and have identified two ranges. Do you think you could take a look?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry

There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Music on whether or not certification icons should be applied to Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Filter 559

Hi, any idea what's going on here? I can't see any reference to archive.is Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

User:Herbxue is keeping diffs in a sandbox that is related to acupuncture and he is participating in a discussion related acupuncture.[82][83] He was previously informed he was violating his topic ban.[84] I can submit this to WP:AE or you can evaluate the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like he hasn't touched it since being advised it was a topic ban violation. Therefore, I won't take any action and you should not pursue this further.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You are an amazing Wiki! HaroldSalasI (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jesus!

I thought you might be interested in learning that the overwhelming consensus of historians who have studied this matter all agree that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified at the order of P.P. This isn't just biblical scholars, but real honest to God historians. It is an almost certainty that Jesus was a real person. This water into wine business, and other "miracles" well that's quite a different matter. But rest assured, Jesus was as real as Julius Caesar.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historians who have studied this matter" is somewhat of a self-selecting list, which creates a bias problem, one extremely similar to the problem we have with finding scientists that have studied electronic voice phenomena. I'm listening, though: if you can demonstrate the existence of any significant number of non-Christian, non-Muslim historians that have studied the the problem and come to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I'd be very interested. They aren't listed in our article on the subject, and I'm unaware of their existence.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My dear good man (forgive my presumption), I have no desire to involve myself in the argument at ANI nor the article. It's too contentious for my blood. I posted here for that reason. I can't rmember the documentary I saw, but I believe it was on PBS. It was a secular investigation into the existence of Jesus, and it relied on eyewitness accounts on the events leading up to Jesus' trial and execution. These accounts were recorded by scribes of the time. Are those scribes reliable sources? I won't offer an opinion, but the panel of secular and non-secular historians universally agreed JoN gathered followers, caused a ruckus and got shiskabobbed for his troubles. I kind if liken this to climate change. I'm completely unqualified to offer an opinion, but I do believe the experts who say its a real thing. I'll ask my folks about it tomorrow and see if I can find the title for you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A title would certainly be a step in the right direction. A documentary that you can't quite remember what it was, where you saw it, or who was on it isn't a particularly persuasive argument.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Frontline. And here is some text from an Evangelical site complaining about the series:

America's PBS television (Public Broadcasting System - viewer and tax supported) is currently broadcasting a seductive, but dangerously inaccurate film series about Jesus Christ and the early church. The series is part of the FRONTLINE program and is entitled "From Jesus to Christ, the First Christians."[1]

The series was developed by a producer who appears to enjoy using his position to promote left-wing, liberal beliefs.[2] He promises to reveal "the real story of the rise of Christianity… challenging and upsetting conventional ideas." One of the scholars used in the series is the liberal Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan[3], [4]. The series also heavily promotes their PBS Web site on this subject, which among other things promotes: "Writings from, and about, the Jesus Seminar, the controversial group of scholars which meets and determines, by vote, the veracity of stories and texts about Jesus."

It is worthy of note that no evangelical scholars were used in the series. Rather, the emphasis was on people from such liberal institutions as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, Union, etc. According to Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, the series "does not acknowledge distinctively evangelical perspectives at any point."[5]

Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that liberals and non-evangelicals were automatically non-Christian and non-Muslim. I suspect that they weren't aware of that either.—Kww(talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems lots of people want to question motives on this subject. Not me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Another edit filter

Do you think you can whip something up to stop the vandalism happening at Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? No one's bothering to semi-protect the article it seems and the IP user keeps posting the same string so it shouldn't be difficult.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me at some RFC or formal discussion that would support filtering it, Ryulong? Content-based filters need fairly strong justification.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nationalistic vandalism. I posted about it on ANI but I was told to just RBI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He's gotten bolder and calling my reverts "communist PRC propaganda". He also seems to like the same sentence to describe Taiwan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Back again, different situation. I keep having to request protection on List of marine biologists because an anime's fans kees adding a character to it. Do you think you can do something with edits like these?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Overly restrictive filter 601

Hi. I am told you’re the author of filter 601, which is apparently the ID of the filter that’s rather unpredictably disallowing my edits. Could you tell me why this is, and/or put a stop to it? I’d greatly appreciate either option. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Early non-admin close

The discussion was closed to early and no rational explanation was given to oppose the page move. See Talk:Chiropractor#The_title_is_ambiguous_and_incorrect. See Talk:Chiropractor#Requested_page_move_2. To avoid wasting time the page should be moved so that the contents and the title match.

See WP:BADNAC: "Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator"... QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't particularly early: RM's usually run a week. In six days, you didn't have anyone supporting your position. It would have been irresponsible to close the RM any other way.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was there were only two other comments and the editor who opposed wrote "we would probably agree that the content of the article doesn't really match the title"[85] He know the contents does not match the title. Another editor also understands the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter piper picked pickling, not pickled, peppers.

I learned this nursery rhyme in the 1940's. I think that the later source has been corrupted. I'm not willing to engage in a flame war over this topic, despite its world-shaking importance, so I suggest that both of us search for earlier sources of the rhyme. Vegasprof (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/T.Wells kid

A new user from MariaJaydHicky. Can you sockpuppet him/her, and revert his/her edits? 115.164.57.198 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.138.228.101

Much likely similar edit pattern from T.Wells kid on Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song). Can you please sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.164.156 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant

This matter needs to be looked at by several admins who know the history and/or have used Technophant's talk page, so I'm pinging Kww, Adjwilley, Jmh649, Zad68, Dougweller, Brandon, and Golbez. I'm also pinging the involved "banned" editors: QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3. Since I am "banned" from their talk page, I'm doing this here, but this should not be necessary.

Here's what just reappeared:

Banned users

Due to disruptive edits, insults to myself or others, personal attacks, harassment or other incivility, users QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3 are indefinitely banned from editing on my talk pages. I had tried to make a "free speech" zone where editing would be allowed, however I no longer wish to do this. I'm done being bullied. I am asking for a mutual WP:IBAN to allow Wikipedia to once again be a safe place from personal attacks and harassment. diff

This totally unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant is very odd. Why? Obviously their repentance was only feigned, and therefore an indef ban should be reconsidered on behavioral grounds. Take a look at their talk page history and you'll see no provocations at all. All those strong personal attacks are just placed there, without any evidence. They are gross failures to AGF. AGF is a policy and such a gross violation is sanctionable. That needs to happen, and Technophant instructed that they are not allowed to ban any editor who comments civilly, even if it's unpleasant.

Such page bans are an abuse of the purpose of our talk pages, and prevents proper use of Technophant's talk page. It's a blatant personal attack on all of us and it's very uncollegial/uncollaborative. An editor who doesn't try to get along with other editors really shouldn't be here. If they really want an interaction ban, as the edit indicates, then they should be locked up on their own talk page and not be allowed to edit or comment anywhere else. Put them in isolation with a vow of silence! That way they get their wish....no interaction. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As I was pinged I'll chip in. So far as I am concerned so long as Technophant abides by the topic ban and refrains from more direct personal attacks, I am not concerned. While this is a backhanded accusation of bullying which I mildly object to, it doesn't concern me much. As an improperly requested IBAN I don't expect it to go anywhere. I have no intention of posting to that user's talk page unless appropriate per policy. If Technophant edits in some way that I find it necessary to post to their talk page it would involve probably just a template with comment or notification. I have no reason to anticipate this at this time. My editing interests don't seem to extend into the areas Technophant edits in (outside the topic ban with minor exceptions). I think if ROPE is left available and used then some action might be appropriate. I don't know if BullRangifer's editing interests on articles have created a reason for their interest. My experience with BullRangifer does not give me cause to suspect they would be wielding a STICK but this seems a bit of an over reaction. If my reading of this is wrong or my response seems off, my talk page is open. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just pissed off at being attacked out of the blue, for no legitimate reason, and such a gross violation of AGF and NPA then goes unpunished. We really need to either get rid of NPA and AGF totally, or enforce them. At the very least a warning needs to be given. They should strike those personal attacks. Here I was looking forward to being able to edit peacefully and collegially alongside Technophant, but he just poisons the atmosphere. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think he's just irritated by the continuously unclosed SPI in which he is named. I dislike his tone, and have always believed that talk page bans should be impermissible, but, unfortunately, the community as a whole disagrees with me about that (and disagrees quite strenuously, so far as I can tell). There's nothing here for me to act on.—Kww(talk) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What about the unprovoked personal attacks? There's something to be done there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Simple solution: unwatchlist his talk page. There's no reason for you to continue to interact with him. (See also WP:OWB #65.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I love that page! It's been on my watchlist for years. BTW, I don't interact with him at all. While ignoring and allowing policy violations (always interpreted by the perp as approval and encouragement) is not a thing for any loyal and experienced Wikipedian to do, especially for admins, #39 does fit this situation quite well.

Ultimately it's up to admins what type of message you all want to send, because inaction (when informed) is a deliberate action which sends a clear message, and it will be interpreted as approval. General history here tells us that, and especially the history in this case. If you doubt my interpretation, I can inform you that I have a legal precedent, in which the judge used my logic above, and my exact wording, in her decision, thus getting a malicious prosecution case against over 30 people and entities thrown out. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have a large contingent of editors that doesn't understand the harm that things like this cause. If I were to follow my own opinions, too many would be eager to interpret that as some kind of petulance over Adjwilley having overriden my block of Technophant despite my explicit and specific objections to him having done so. It's just not a big enough issue for me to be able to argue that any reasonable admin would take action.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just unwatch the talk page. Admins aren't the police and they aren't anyone's mom. If you want to keep watching the talk page because "I love that page" it's not up to us to send some message because you don't like what you see. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I was referring to my "love" for this page: WP:OWB (User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior). -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. The point remains. Ignore the editor, unwatch their talk page and all of this will melt away. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done what I could by bringing this to all of your attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I also invite Brangifer (talk) to unwatch my Talk page too. For the record, I never initiate contact with it, and I always delete its comments, as permitted. I already have a mom who cares about me. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to locate SPI

Hey I'm trying to find the SPI that led to the blocking of User:Keshasbyotch. I'd like to review it. It says he was an Sock of User:SayaamRulz, but I can't find an investigation mentioning either of them over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations even using the search. Zell Faze (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Please either {{ping}} me or reply on my talk page.

I'd also like to ask that Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha is restored. This draft showed promise and I see no reason to delete it. If its needs another steward, I can take up that role. Zell Faze (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually can't find the investigation even when searching everything. Was one conducted? Zell Faze (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no formal investigation, Zell Faze: the socking was too obvious to require one. And no, I will not restore articles that were created in defiance of a block.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If as at all possible I'd like to see diffs to substantiate that. I'm happy to change my opinion if you are able to provide compelling evidence. From the interactions that I had with him he did not seem like an editor that much experience. He was asking me for help with using citation templates just a few days ago. I'm going to bring up the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review then. I'll add a link here when I've opened the request. Zell Faze (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm retracting my earlier comments about him not being a sock. Zell Faze (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zell Faze (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Need your help

Your comments you made on my talk page saying ""I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to Technophant's block won't repeat themselves" and will also add obviously Technophant's repentance was only feigned and short lived." have come back to haunt me here. I don't know if you've been following my actions, but I'm guessing you have. I've interacted, mostly by email, with User:Adjwilley, and User:Doc James regularly and I have stayed away from topic ban areas, wrestled my daemons, and found a newer more respectful place in this universe. I hope you can revise your statement. If I remember right it was you final word about me. I hope you've changed your mind. ~Technophant (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you my review "QuackGuru/SkepticalRaptor/Yobol" SPI draft in my sandbox2. ~Technophant (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, whom I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: Simplifying my excessive parsing, the question is simply how to cite an Ernst paper -- per User:Middle_8/Ernst-11 -- but now JzG/Guy is just going to email Ernst. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 05:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DeadSend4

I am responding to the user's UTRS ticket, and before proceeding, I thought to ask you: would you object to a conditional unblock with a clear Mariah Carey & Christina Aguilera TBAN, and that any violation of the TBAN and/or resonable doubt of violating our policy on meatpuppety will result in an immediate indef block, considering reblocking can be done easily? I understand the block reason used was for "abusing multiple accounts" (actually for alleged meatpuppetry), but considering how difficult it would be to "prove" these meat/canvassing allegations, unblocking with conditions to reblock if/when these conditions are violated may be helpful IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The topic ban would suffice, Salvidrim. As for proof, it's only hard to prove now because the forums he was posting on took the call to arms into private sections so that they couldn't be monitored any more. At the time of the block, there was no reasonable doubt.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lightning fast reply. I will submit the TBAN conditions to the user and ublock if he accepts them clearly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 (Adele album)

Kww, you might be interested in it. Mind you a clear cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL is going on with users resorting to even use sites like Perezhilton.com. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 is continuing to edit against consensus

User:Middle 8 was notified of the discretionary sanctions[86][87] and he was notified of 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page.

Middle 8 is continuing to try to rewrite or delete the same sentence:

• Revision as of 13:16, 8 July 2014 He deleted sourced text but claimed the source doesn't support general statement. In the previous discussion, Middle 8 claimed RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness. He had a discussion on User:RexxS's talk page too. See User_talk:RexxS/Archive_25#Ernst_re_pain..._and_talk.... There was a discussion about using the source. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51#Acupuncture_again.

• Revision as of 05:45, 31 August 2014 He replaced sourced text with original research in the lede. His edit was also a violation of lede because it did not summarise the body.

• Revision as of 07:58, 1 September 2014 He reworded the text to alter the meaning of the sentence. The part "may be" was original research. See Talk:Acupuncture#Summarize.

• Revision as of 12:52, 7 September 2014. Now he replaced sourced text with SYN and OR. For example, the part "that indicates a lack of effectiveness" was original research. He is repeatedly adding text to the lede that does not summarise the body and he is repeatedly replacing sourced text with text that failed verification. See Talk:Acupuncture#Explaining_sham_acu_to_the_reader_in_lede. There is another discussion where editors support using the source for a conclusion.[88][89] See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Acupuncture_source.

I request permission to submit the above to WP:AE or you can decide if anything should or should not be done. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, that last edit was premature; it would have been better to discuss on talk. But Kww, QuackGuru simply isn't telling the whole truth here. It's very hard to collaborate with him -- cf. Talk:Acupuncture#Request_re:_collaboration -- and he reverts anything he doesn't like. Then when I try to improve it, he reverts that, and then presents the diffs of my edits as "edit warring". That's the case here. Anything paraphrasing or summarizing is always "OR" with QG. I've tried to de-escalate this conflict between us [90], but to no avail [91].

Before going forward please give me a chance to respond properly. It may take a day or two, but there are no deadlines (and of course I'll refrain from further edits to the article in the interim; QG may wish to do the same). As before, there's more than meets the eye, so, benefit of the doubt, please. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) couple more edits as of 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What I'd really like to do, and maybe we can do this before escalating and throwing around accusations, is to try and unravel the underlying content dispute -- and then take a nice long break. I've been trying to understand where QG is coming from, but it's not always easy; sometimes he simply doesn't reply. I've posted a question for QG at his user talk [92]: User_talk:QuackGuru#Important:_Could_you_clarify.3F. Maybe with a calm, neutral third party like Kww present, "moderating" the conversation in the sense of encouraging us to be clear with each other, we can cut through the logjam. I'd prefer that to playing "who can dig up the worst diffs" games; that's bad for the wikistress.

Kww, much of this hinges on how to interpret the context of an Ernst statement. It's not a hard call imo, but does take about 10-15 minutes to read the source. If you wish, please see User:Middle_8/Ernst-11-excerpts. And just email me if you need a copy. Discussion is at WT:MEDRS#Acupuncture_source. Thanks! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And FYI & FWIW, discussion of the last edit QG objected to is here: Talk:Acupuncture#Explaining_sham_acu_to_the_reader_in_lede. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Kww, I've attempted to discuss substance, and addressed QG's complaints, at Talk:Acupuncture [93]. Inspection shows I'm not "disrupting" at all -- actually am gently steering toward consensus wording from July [94]. Please ask QG to stop doing this; it's a vendetta.

• Re RexxS; QG omits context. I like RexxS, and he's a very good editor, but sometimes the heat of his rhetoric eclipses the light, with hyperbole and ABF. Cf. here and here passim.
• See: Wikichecker for just how intense QG's WP:OWN issues are. Do have a look at Talk:Acupuncture#Request_re:_collaboration. Suggest you encourage some disengagement, perhaps mentoring.

Thanks. I'm going on Wikibreak now. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently User:Middle 8 is continuing to revert back in the same disputed text over and over again.

• Revision as of 06:33, 13 October 2014.

• Revision as of 09:14, 13 October 2014.

• Revision as of 15:52, 21 October 2014. According to his edit summary, he claims I agree with him.

I currently don't agree with the change and I explained it over and over again on the talk page. Other editors also disagree with the change including User:Jmh649 and User:Dominus Vobisdu.[95][96] I don't understand why he is continuing to restore the unnecessary wording. The current discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture#Restoration of verifiable material. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't user Dominus Vobisdu just got banned for his actions[97][98]. What really counts is the quality of arguments in the discussion. Dominus Vobisdu gave none.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. [...] The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. (WP:TALDONTREVERT)

These concerns have been brought to discussion at 15:28, 13 October 2014[99]. During all this time, the he didn't participate the discussion (except for a personal attack that got redacted. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding QuackGuru's comments above at 17:45, 21 October 2014: As a matter of fact, my edit indeed restores a broad consensus we reached in July, with discussion at article talk and discussion at WT:MED, with a lot of editorial eyes. And QuackGuru in fact supported that wording, enthusiastically, with a big "thumbs up" in his ES.

Consensus was to accept a bold edit by Vzaak, which said "A systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture". And we got it right, substantively (see explanations at my comment here beginning "Put simply:...", and here, "(e/c) Because it was a review of reviews and the RCT was cited as an exception," et passim). And that consensus still applies, for reasons I stated here, at "@QuackGuru Yes, I saw your comment...". I have no idea why QuackGuru has changed his mind, but if he's implying that he never supported it, that's disingenuous.

When QuackGuru reverted my recent consensus-restoring edit, he was wrong to claim "violation of consensus" in his ES. That ES may have misled a couple of editors who watch the article and, following QuackGuru, reverted my edit -- but, as Jaya-S notes above, it's been over a week and none of them has objected to my explanation. (Cf. discussion at article talk here and here, and at user talk pages for Doc James, McSly, and Dominus Vobisdu.)

OK, Kww, just making sure my side is heard. I'm sorry to see QuackGuru still considers this page to be the "Middle 8 complaints department", but suppose you're used to it. What I really don't like is the time it takes me to refute his objections, which tend to be dubious, as here -- and that is why I suggest you consider a boomerang, this time or next time. It takes balls to say that I violated consensus when I actually restored a consensus edit that he supported at the time! Anyway, happy editing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 again

Past behavior

11:55, 12 May 2014

5:40, 25 June 2014

01:09, 4 July 2014

23:57, 4 July 2014 You warned Middle 8 to not make changes like that.

Current behavior

User:HJ Mitchell also warned Middle 8 to respect Wikipedia policies on neutrality, consensus, and verifiability as well as all other applicable policies.

Middle 8 failed to explain why he deleted the part "with no logical mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." from the lede and body of acupuncture and from the lede of TCM.

I think it is time for arbitration. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Belize

Why does it seem Americans have a hard time living in Belize for any length of time? I've been there, and it does seem charming, and an easy place to be. Yet, I've noticed that ex-pats who live there don't seem to last all that long. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FugaDeAmor

User FugaDeAmor has still been adding deprecated and other unreliable charts on Belinda's album charts despite repeated warnings not to do so and recentley reverted my edit when I removed unreliable charts that have America Top 100. Erick (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Te Voy A Esperar may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of banned users MfD

Hi Kww. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Noted your block on IP 50.150.100.229 for block evasion by User:Mbz1 but her Userpage displays it as retired which is wrong as the user is evading it the user is banned can this be changed.Further I have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbz1 just for information.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible return of Jazzerino, not sure though

Account created 31 August, around the time of all those blockings of Jazzerino's socks. This user Rational Observer's contributions are focused strictly on syntax and grammatical changes, bookended by two strenuous attempts to obstruct actions by me--their first series of edits or involvement at WP was opposing a change I had proposed ([100]), seeing it all the way to what they felt was its end ([101]), and most recently at opposing an FAC of mine, the first they've reviewed, with trivial objections to syntax and a concerted effort to subvert the guideline on close paraphrasing that justifies its use in the article ([102], [103]) and derail the FAC, which they've now turned to a referendum on "dan56 and close paraphrasing". More careful than Harmelodix and Flow Ridian (whose disruption also spilled over into a review of my past FAC) if any of this is true, and like Harmelodix, their revelations raise some red flags to me (Harmelodix, RationalObserver on their past experiences). All accounts' edit summaries quack some; they also focus significantly on WP:LQ, and RationalObserver's comments about checking for compliance with LQ are eerily familiar to Flow Ridian's few remarks about "Check[ing] the article for compliance with LQ". Flow Ridian's original aim at WP is in effect the other users' activities as well. But what raised a red flag in my mind originally, enough to start digging again, was this comment by Rationalobserver about how I "always resort to personal attacks and insults"; what could they be referring to as an editor with (presumably) no previous direct exchanges with me? Also, I think I've hit some pressure point, and their focus is back on me after an attempt at abstaining since those socks had been blocked. I don't know if this is enough for a CheckUser attempt, but my intuition was right several times before, so it couldn't hurt to ask. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Now he's rewritten policy without any consensus/discussion to reinforce his objection at my FAC. And piling on with any objection. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this, and I am also uncertain. I will do more research.—Kww(talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Btw, in response to my defense of the limited close paraphrasing, he posted this remark about what's acceptable or not, and proceeded to revise the policy again to substantiate it. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this recent effort to draw attention more to me rather than his defense of the policy rewrite may suggest something personal too, as if their actual agenda is spilling over. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan56's repeated baseless accusations, like this one, constitute a personal attack. I see that you are an admin, so can you please advise Dan56 against this type of ongoing attack on my reputation? If he thinks I am a sock, then you should advise him to take it up at SPI, not to go around everywhere I edit and attempt to convince people I am a sock. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." All I did was oppose him at FAC, as two other editors have, and now he is following me everywhere and telling everyone that I am a stalker. This is a very serious accusation, and I ask to be treated as the guideline suggests. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this reference to a past FAC where FlowRidian pretended to critically review the article (and which was later referred to by Harmelodix in the RfC he created against me) may suggest something. Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It suggests that I looked into your illustrious history of close paraphrasing and found lots of juicy examples of obviously intentional plagiarisms. BTW, you followed me to that thread to accuse me of being a sock, which I contend is a personal attack. Is BananaLanguage also a sock? How about Froglich, Robert McClenon, and Middle 8? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Rib...bit? <Huh? Wah? Who disturbs my slumber?>--Froglich (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We were just talking about how well Dan56 treats people who oppose him at FAC. He didn't happen to accuse you of anything ... like having an ulterior motive or socking? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about any of the above accusations but FYI, this has spilled over to AN/I; perhaps the similarity or lack thereof between the behavior I noted in my last 2 comments and Jazzerino's will be informative; perhaps not. I note evidence that Rationalobserver is not new here, and IMO, disruptive.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting, Bishonen. My suspicions were raised by other signs, as I stated at the start of this section. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Research assistance available

The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested input on block

Hey there. So, I know there's plenty of short term vandals who I block without much of an explanation, but here, we've got a 6 month editor you've blocked with very little explanation. (Or if there's explanation, I can't find it.) If he deserves it, fine, but you can at least do a little better job explaining your train of thought, you know? If nothing else, it helps other admin with what are essentially more or less unblock requests. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sergecross73. At the moment, from the perspective of an admin reviewing the unblock request, it's hard to know where to begin. Could you put some diffs together? PhilKnight (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Historicity of Jesus

Delete and salt the article.

It's hard to tell if you were being serious or not. Do you really think that's the best solution? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think it's a topic that our structure prevents us from ever having a policy-compliant article on. It will simply be a festering sore forever, since our normal methods for dealing with source bias will always be circumvented by the large number of editors that view any questioning of the sources as being an attack on Christianity. Compare this thing with Haile Selassie, where the relatively small number of Rastafarian editors don't present a problem, but no one accuses the rest of us as possessing some kind of evil bias against Rastafarians just because we wouldn't tend to take their claims about Haile Selassie at face value.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a hasty generalization leading to throwing out the WP:BABY. We know there are far more Christians, so comparing them to Rastas doesn't work. We would expect more problems on Christian-related articles due to the numbers alone. Further, I can't see how an analogy between the historicity of Christ and Selassie could work. We know Selassie existed and we can prove it using documentary evidence. I think the topic of JC's historicity is valid, but what we should do is collect data about where the problems arise and directly address it. For example, I've previously stated that such a controversial article should have a 1RR imposed upon it to stop the edit wars. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's that sheer numerical force that renders the article beyond repair. Too many people trying to bias it in one direction, too much social pressure against the few that try to resist. I agree that we don't know whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. He probably did, but we don't know. I don't think we can ever get the article to say that.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to clear things up

Hi, i just want to clear things up, i am not a sockpuppet hand on heart I'm not when i was recreating the, articles i was unaware they had been deleted before and just thought they had yet to be created, so i created them had I of known what had happened i wouldn't of just created them i would of took the proper action by mentioning it at ADF or whatever its called, i hope you believe me. I understand the seriousness of sockpuppetry and understand your concern but i repeat i am not a sockpuppet just someone who is very OCD and enthusiastic about the UFC. I have had a poor past on Wikipedia stupidly choosing to be a genre warrior that lead to many a block until the point came where i made the discussion to give myself a genre block to avoid my own demise. I have been editing UFC articles for months but have recently done so more in the absence of genres. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luke

Did you not get a message up saying a page with this title has previously been deleted? 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Hi, no because the pages were never deleted just redirected to a page like this 2012 in UFC Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they were deleted, then a redirect was placed on top of them, 5 albert square and Lukejordan02. When that is done, a subsequent editor doesn't get the warning message.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes thats right, but i didnt know that at the time as i never viewed the history of the page and just went straight to the edit button. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Never knew that before. Learn something new here everyday lol 5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: Do you still think I'm a sock? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Bias

Hi. In no way denying that there is bias in many articles. To take an example, I just stumbled across Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles and it's the mother of all biased articles. Far from what the title says it should be, it's just an apologist attempt to claim historical reliability where none exists. I'm sure you're busy, both with our small discussions not to mention with work and life, but if you have the time to swing by the article at some point it would no doubt be helpful. I've started trying to edit out at least the worst bias, but it's a quite enormous task.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RationalObserver

Have you had a chance to look further into this? Another editor brought up a similar suggestion at at their talk page, considering their general activity at WP: "...difficult to believe you're a new user. For one thing, you have jumped feet first into hotspot areas, where you seem set on being as inflammatory as possible. You have 50% edits to Wikipedia space, 30% to Wikipedia talk, and 3.4% to article space..." Dan56 (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Recently, he offered this shallow support of an FAC based on prose, yet did not impose an impossible standard of paraphrasing and copyright rules as he had at my FAC, not reviewing and finding instances of verbatim text in the article they're supporting, such as "pleaded not guilty to the charge on the grounds of self-defence" (ref.77), "a lack of evidence" (ref.78), "Webster's parole was revoked" (ref.76), "undertake work release" (ref.74), and "her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party" (ref.16). Considering his objections at my FAC, these actionable issues would have been nitpicked to death by him but weren't. All things considered, I feel stronger about the possibility that he applied such a double standard to my article (his first review of an article) because of some hidden agenda, likely because of the suspicions I raised above. Dan56 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I just volunteered to clerk for this case, so I am getting up to speed. There is a bit of discussion about your status. Would it be OK if I added you as a party? I haven't fully investigated whether you have an option, but rather than look into it, I thought i would ask you first. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I agree that I don't have the right to refuse. If people come to the consensus that I should be a party, go ahead and add me.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your original statement, made when you were not a named party, ends up on the case talk page, rather than the evidence page. Given the change in status, I copied the statement to the evidence page. I note that it is written in the context of not being a named party; feel free to edit (with strikeout and underline) or add supplementary points. The evidence phase technically closes tomorrow, but I won't hold you to that. It you do feel the need to made changes/addition and will do so after 13 November, please give me a heads up so I can monitor, and make announcements if necessary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Kww:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

updates on RationalObserver?

I know it's been a while since I last posted about this, but I was wondering if there are any updates or if you'd found anything more than what I posted about already at your talk page, including at my most recent message above? Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you at least tell me if you plan on looking into any of it since you said before you'd do more research. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Motivated edits by User talk:Armaan.haider

Hi! I have noted that User talk:Armaan.haider to be repeatedly making edits which appear to be motivated. I have noted from users talk page that in past you and another user had warned him to restrain from such practice else his edit privilege would be blocked.

He has been repeatedly removing contents that are critical to article Happy New Year (2014 film) without providing any valid reason. I think it is high time that the edit priviledges of user is blocked.Vinod (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaan.haider. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't all Allmusic.com be used for Genres?

Kevin, can't allmusic.com be used for Genres if there isn't a more reliable source? The reason I'm asking is because the user Synthwave.94 persistently removed allmusic.com as a source which I provided for the Genres Synthpop, New-wave at Baltimora's page, and claimed that it's not reliable. I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid doesn't have allmusic.com included in the table as being unreliable for Genres, just says avoid allmusic if there is a better source. Synthwave.94 has provided an offline source that supposedly supports the Italo-disco as a Genre but has not provided evidence in the discussion I had with him/her that his/her offline source says that Baltimora was Italo-disco only and not Synthpop, New-wave. Take a look please if you have the time, because in my honest opinion sourced Genres should not be removed unless all other sources claim that this particular band/project is only this Genre.--Harout72 (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC) @Harout72: Yeah, allmusic can be used if another reliable source is not available, especially for albums that were independent realeases, not that notable, and may have ran out of print. Take Drake Bell's Telegraph, his debut album as an example. I could not find a better, more reliable source due to the reasons I mentioned above, so allmusic was the best source for it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:Synthwave.94

The user User:Synthwave.94 keeps removing sourced Genres from the Infoboxes of both from Den Harrow and Baltimora claiming that the sources talk about one song only, therefore, it isn't enough for that Genre to be included. The user has so far failed to back up his/her removals with such policies that restrict Genres from being included, if sources provided speak of one song only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Concrete evidence of fake sources

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources.
Message added 23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I request Kww again to acknowledge whether the administrator is seeing my edits. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

the extent of possible comment on Technophant's offending behaviours on general talk pages

Kww I am not a new editor but have had little background in Wikipedia protocols related to errant editor practice. As a background I have been somewhat justly considered to have been POV pushing regarding a desire to give qualification to the use of "jihadist" on the ISIL page. Technophant launched a campaign against me that, with one element examined, was described in terms of an invitation to a lynching. Since that time, and having given no previous attention to the topic, it seems to me that s/he has made a concerted attempt to derail or otherwise circumvent the discussion as I think demonstrated at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. In hope that you understand relevant issues in the guidelines I'd appreciate any relevant intervention/advice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant block

I'm quite confused by the Technophant block. As far as I understand it, IP 71.40.3.92 makes this edit at 20:57, 9 November 2014, you indef-block Technophant at 02:36, 10 November 2014, and you block the IP at 03:19, 10 November 2014. Did something else play into the situation? I don't see why we need to conclude that this IP is Technophant, and since WP:SOCK permits non-disruptive logged-out editing, I don't see why it would be a problem even if it is he, not to mention not seeing why such an infraction would warrant an indefinite block. Am I missing something perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP edit, I believe, was evading a short 24-hour topic ban placed by another admin. And I'm pretty sure Technophant had logged out on this IP in a similar manner before. That said, I think the duration on the block was a bit overkill, especially considering KWW's prior involvement with this editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not overkill: Technophant has demonstrated that he will sockpuppet to evade any restrictions placed on him. There's no reason to believe that his misbehaviour will ever stop.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable interpretation is that Technophant has demonstrated poor judgement and ineptitude at socking. I'd like to think there's a difference between article editors who occasionally sock/troll and socks/trolls who occasionally edit articles. I also hope that you'll step away from this user in the future: indeffing the same user three times in a row is poor form at best. Also, you needn't worry about me interfering anymore. I'm done there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Occasional" socking and "inept" socking are still inexcusable. The only real issue here is that Technophant was unblocked when there was no reason to believe that this behaviour wouldn't repeat itself. If there was some shred of doubt left, I would think that this latest round has destroyed it.—Kww(talk)

In a wider context, unless forced into a position by admin, I have seen no evidence that Technophant will to any extent be held accountable for actions. Enquiries and questions are routinely ignored or deflected. I believe that the socking should be viewed in contexts such as this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Text deleted from lede without consensus

The part "It primary used as a complementary alternative medicine."[104] was added to the lede by me on 29 September 2014. Now two months later on 12 November 2014 the improved sentence was deleted along with other text. "It is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine."[105] The edit summary was pointy and he thought because all the text was new he can delete it then argue it has no consensus. He has a pattern of deleting text from the TCM page without gaining consensus.[106] The sentence is in the body "It is primary used as a complementary alternative medicine.[1]" See Traditional Chinese medicine#Philosophical background. There was no logical reason to deleted the sentence from the lede. He thought because an IP recently added all the text to the lede he could just delete all the text and force editors to discuss it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede before my edits said: "Other traditional Chinese medical practices remain common in mainland China, in Taiwan, and among overseas Chinese. It is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine. It has become popular in other countries.". The poor grammar is clearly pointed out in my following edits:

1) "What "other traditional Chinese medical practices" exactly?"[107]

2) "What "it"? The previous sentence is referring to some undefined "other" TCM practices."[108]. The first sentence is about "other traditional Chinese medical practices" (plural), whereas the second sentence says "It is..." (singular)

3)"What has become popular in other countries?"[109]. The same problem as with previous one. Where is this "It has become popular..." pertaining to?

Poor grammar indeed. As I clearly said in my edit summary: "not sure what the edits mean". E.g. I didn't manage to find out what these "other TCM practices" are on the basis of the source. QuackGuru, you took the honor of improving the text, right?[110] So perhaps you could use your energy to correct the errors you made instead?

What comes to the other allegations you made, please do provide detailed diffs. As you know, one should always present tangible proof. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the text without trying to improve it. I clarified the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Driftchambers

Hello Kww,

it's been quite a few months since our last communication and i'd like to re-open a discussion with yourself. I've already sent a message to Nick (and then read your having told myself to not put messages elsewhere, so apologies for that, as it was unintentional from me to have gone against your instructon). In the message to Nick i mentioned i have a page with the password upon it, but that is only a part of the info on the page, and i don't know at this time which part is the actual password, so i'm anticipating if i get to go through every possible i'll eventually find the password. If you know of any trusted person who could take the info i have and use it to regain access it would save me time. I'll just proceed to make the repeat attempts until i find the password, then i'll re-message, unless you begin a discussion again here. Again, apologies for the Nick message.146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

would you, or some other editor (if your too busy or otherwise) like an email address from myself for communication? It might be easier for myself to communicate via email, instead of on talk pages. 146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

update?

Could you at least tell me if you plan on looking into any of it since you said before you'd do more research on RationalObserver? Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan56, I owe you a personal apology. Whenever I try to look into this, waves of depression and disgust strike. I will make an effort this weekend to clean out MariaJaydHicky one more time, as I see upwards of three accounts that are likely her. —Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lil Kim discography

An editor on this page keeps adding a RIAA cert that does not come from the RIAA website itself which is what wikipedia says should be the only source.

User talk:Mitrabarun

Hey--don't know if you noticed or want to do anything, but he put up a new RfUB. I'm spectating, because I really don't want to get sucked in again. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Being kind to disruptive editors

I hear you but the situation is more nuanced. Editors aren't disruptive or good faith; they have the potential to be both, depending on how they are treated and what situation they put themselves in. Being kind to a disruptive editor can help them express their good faith side and minimize the disruption. On the other hand, being kind to somebody who continues a jerk will usually create a strong consensus to get rid of them. Being kind is a win-win. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A Nobody

• 24.112.187.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back. You took care of the last block and are familiar with his editing habits. Maybe 6 months or a year this time? ThemFromSpace 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Armaan.haider

I do not know what to do in this case:

RE: Armaan.haider

Summary:

• Ahtasham.dogar3 was blocked as voa by Kww.
• He then created Armaan.haider and Aryan.malik3 and has abused both accounts, tagteam edit warring with them at Bang Bang! (an article rife with socking and edit warring).
• I confronted him and he admitted to socking, not seeming to realize it was is allowed. He also doesn't seem to know edit warring isn't allowed.
• So, why not indef the lot? Because of Talk:Bang Bang! and the tone of his talk page, where it seems like he could be turned into a productive editor operating one account.

Thoughts?

Links:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaan.haider
• His talk page before he cleaned it up

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As Anna previously pointed out on my talk page, I had ran across the editor when they removed content without an edit summary. After reviewing their edits, I too have come under the impression that they are not here to disrupt the project, but rather contribute constructively. Perhaps one of us could take Armaan under our wing and show them how things are done policy and guideline wise, steering them into the right direction? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kww. Any thoughts on this? Do you care one way or the other? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, what gives you the impression that the editor is both capable and willing to edit productively? There's nothing much in Bang Bang! that would give me that impression, as it appears to be a massive WP:NOT#PLOT violation, with a box office listing of the kind that indicates that he is unable to summarize..—Kww(talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good points. No indication. But, no indication that he is not willing or able. He doesn't seem to know any policy or guideline, so maybe that's all he needs.

So, we have a choice:

• 1. Block everyhing (note he has a dynamic IP)
• 2. Get a CU to find sleepers, and block all but one account. Then, monitor and guide (I can). If things don't work out, then block.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And you too, my friend. What do you both think is the best thing to do? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning on #2. It would be assuming good faith, and giving the user in question a proper go. It could go pair–shaped; but we're not going to know, if the user is blocked on the get-go. I'd be willing to assist you Anna, should you need it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Possible gain and nothing to lose. MelbourneStar and I can take it from here. Kww, are you okay with this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are willing to aggressively supervise, I have no strong objection.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will do my best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

Done. All known accounts are blocked except for Armaan.haider. He has been given conditions and asked to respond before editing further. Wish me luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

History merge request

Would you be able to merge the history of Now You See Me: Now You Don't with Now You See Me: The Second Act? Doesn't make sense to have an unnecessary redirect laying around. RAP (talk) 1:45 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns my FAC as well

Made any headway with the possible sock/sock master? The reason I ask is I've been meaning to renominate the FAC that user derailed the first time. I'm positive they'll come back to oppose the second, so I just want to know if this user is someone I'm supposed to take seriously if they show up there, or if I can just dismiss their objection as a sock with a grudge. Dan56 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text%7Ctitle=Bradley Manning's statements during his trial

Good evening,

I have undone your edit. Again, the referenced article was legal testimony by Bradley Manning. If Bradley Manning chanes their name 10 times from now until eternity, it does not change the fact that the name of the person under trial, who gave sworn testimony, was Bradley Manning.

That was was happened. The reference cited (not by me) was to an article written in real-time.

That was Bradley Manning. If you want to add a footnote of "now known as Chelsea Manning", feel free to do so.

For reference, Chaz Bono was born Chastity Sun Bono. Anything said by Chastity Sun Bono was by Chastity Sun Bono, now known as Chaz Bono.

I am sure you are a great editor, but let's not re-write history.

If anyone were to try and search, in a library, for an article, new item, reference to Chelsea Manning in regards to that Iraq incident there would be 0 results.

That is because there was no such persona, name Chelseas Manning, at that time.

If the people here (wiki editors) don't start making more sense, I'm afraid not only will I stop participating, I will do my best to shine the light on the idiocy it has become.

This does not need to be a reflection on you, but common sense must prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your continued participation on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to me, Fomeister. We wound up going through two RFCs and an Arbitration committee proceeding to arrive at the conclusion that using "Chelsea" was appropriate, although I, like you, tend to think that using "Bradley" for things done under that name is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Civility

Kww,

I have no beef with you, but it seems that admin.editors continue to forget key tenants.

I don't blame you, many others have as well.

Let me ask you a question, do you feel that your comment violates any key tenants? Do you in any way regret this statement? Emphasis mine.

Your continued participation on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to me, Fomeister. We wound up going through two RFCs and an Arbitration committee proceeding to arrive at the conclusion that using "Chelsea" was appropriate, although I, like you, tend to think that using "Bradley" for things done under that name is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC) If not, then continue on.

While I appreciate your agreement, and I understand your acquiescence to some Consensus, I found no links to any of what you said.

As such, I did no know of any such Consenus. Posting just (not per consensus) on your edit really does not meet the standards then, does it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY . Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was civil, I just wasn't nice. Very different concepts.—Kww(talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of any Consensus, but having read it I stand by my edit.

MOS:IDENTITY . Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).

The article that is linked is to a legal deposition, given by one Bradley Manning. The title of the article has Bradley Manning's name in it.

Stop with one-click dictatorship.

I am as equal to you as any other editor. When you start doing things like this, you are contributing to the overall downfall of what was a great project.

Your comment regarding "civil" and "nice", with or without regards to semantics was not civil.

Waiting for you to undo your edit. And if you feel the need to undo an edit, have the civility to follow the pillars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of undoing that edit, per Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request, which followed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. Should you undo that edit, you will find yourself blocked quite rapidly. As for my civility, you dropped in on my talk page with the argument that should I not do what you want, you would take your ball and go home. That's not an argument that tends to make me feel all warm, fuzzy, and inclined to be nice. I have, however, followed the five pillars. Your interest in participating in Wikipedia is not germane to the discussion and is of no interest to me. Me stating so may not have been my kindest moment, but it wasn't uncivil. If, in fact, following consensus is something which would make you lose desire to participate in Wikipedia, then I suggest that you stop participating in Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the context of the article was an interview if an individual during a court proceeding, named Bradley Manning. The article cited also reference Bradley Manning. No matter what that person is called now, in the conext of that article, it should be Bradley Manning.

A good example. Yul Bryner's bio used to say his mother migrated to China. She in fact could have, but instead migrated to Manchuria (now part of China) for a lot of reasons. I made that edit, and it has stood the test of time. You cannot say that Angela Merkel was born in Germany. She was born in West Germany. Though West Germany does not currently exist, and neither does Manchuria, that is the way it must, should, and shall be expressed in context.

I whave already asked for 1 other editor to weigh in here, and I would ask you again to reconsider your unwarranted edit without considering the contect of that article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 03:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213

Safe to disable this again? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A bunny for you

The soft bunny of happiness and tranquility.

A nice bunny being given to you, and maybe not for the first or last time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

OpenCart

Hi talk. I am requesting again that you unblock the OpenCart article. I understand that you are protecting an article which has been abused in the past, but, as others have pointed out, this software is far more notable than many of the existing entries, and you should not be personally holding back the development of an article. Looking at the previous deletion discussion, the consensus for deletion was mostly based on the (lack of) quality of the article. If a future version of the article is not of sufficient quality, let that be a community consensus rather than one person's decision. Greenman (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Greenman (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: Rationalobserver

You said a few weeks ago that you'd check into this possible sock.... Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, and your continued accusations, sans an SPI report, constitute personal attacks. Kww, Dan has been accusing me of impropriety for more than two months. Will you please address this issue so that we can both move on? Otherwise, I will be filing an AN/I report for harassment and personal attacks. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Drake Bell

I'm not sure I completely understand. You removed the part about the music video hits. Can you explain what WP:SINGLEVENDOR is? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss how popular a video is, use a measurement source that includes multiple methods of delivery, not one that only include as single network or vendor, Joseph Prasad. Billboard has charts that measure videos distributed through multiple means.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 and DUCKs

If you want to talk DUCK tests, then isn't it strange that two IPs and one account from Macedonia tried to help Dan56 pass an article at FAC, and now an IP from Macedonia is helping Dan56 win a genre war? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

tsk tsk, you're reaching smh. I was the one who reported those "two IPs and one account from Macedonia" to the FAC delegate ([111]). Nor am I involved in a genre war there. If you want to distract Kww from the issue here, please find something more convincing. Dan56 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser

Can I please ask what will happen after I'm checkusered and cleared of wrongdoing? Will you then ask Dan56 to stop accusing me, or will this two month ordeal continue as it is? Because I am willing to voluntarily submit to the investigation if it means this will end. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that, per "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed", you owe me an acknowledgment and explanation, since you've basically accused me of being a sock or operating multiple accounts and agreed to help Dan56 prove it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's quite likely that you are Jazzerino once again. I don't owe you an apology for that belief. I haven't taken any administrative actions against you that require justification. Dan56 has presented a mixed bag of evidence, some of which is basically "Rationalobserver doesn't like me", which doesn't count for much, and some of which has more merit. I'll comment on the report when it's made.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi! I was wondering if you could possibly comment on this discussion? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Verifiable, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Familiar Texas IP again?

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/166.137.139.28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.137.139.28 See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Close review, second closing

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you so much for bearing with me through another one of Jazzerino's socks and not dismissing my claims, like others had. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't contact an editor to let them know about an AfD which you know has been an interest of theirs. Thanks for letting me know. : )OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Cartoon network freak

Hi! You asked me about the links that I posted from charly.com on the. report the error.... These links are for chart peaks in Poland and Italy (both digital charts) in the page Cliche (Hush Hush). Can you please help me, report the error? A Happy New Year! Cartoon network freak 08:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Kww, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Special:Contributions/Riggiran117

Can you keep an eye with the user? Make sure watching he/she may added unsourced genre and uncited material. 183.171.181.41 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Charly.com

Aha.....I understand it now. Sorry! But how can use the Romanian- language page of this article the links? Ctoon network freak, Happy New Year! 20:57, 28 December (UTC)

Global account

Hi Kww! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[112] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Happy New Year Kww!

Happy New Year!

Kww,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear Kww,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

User talk:STEF1995S

Hey Kevin, a long time ago you blocked this account, and later the sock User:Innano1. I wonder if you have any thoughts on User:Danial-ay (and maybe Jordyxavier.black). After cleaning up a bunch of Inna-related articles I have become convinced that there's a PR machine at work. Thanks, and happy new year, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm having a hard time seeing anything that specifically drives me to conclude that its STEF1995S again, although I see your point about Inna promotion. Bear in mind that Inna is essentially the only Romanian performer with a following outside of Romania: what seems trivial to us is going to seem quite important to a Romanian teenager. Do you have any specific edits in mind that make you think of STEF1995S?—Kww(talk) 02:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Mbcap

I found out that you and PBS have blocked Technophant for sockpupetting. Mbcap (talk) appears to be very much like a sockpuppet for Technophant. He signed up again shortly after he was banned and, although he has some fake nonsense on his user page, he seems to have the same depth of knowledge and same writing style [113]. 122.152.167.7 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if you have issue with me, you should inform me first on my talk page before you get others involved. "he seems to have the same depth of knowledge". I just had a look at technophant's page so all I can say is I am flattered since he seems to have some experience. I have only been here for a few weeks and already being accused of being a sock puppet. I am happy for any relevant person to investigate this allegation fully and I would like an apology after the investigation is finished as I have no doubt, the accusation will be found to be groundless. "he has fake nonsense on his user page", you are a sorry human being. You have been unreasonable and I am responding in kind. The fact that my work on the islamic state of iraq and the levant is causing you to make such absurd allegations makes me think there is a a subgroup of editors who wish to claim ownership over that page. I was already bemused when I head some talk about sock puppets with my conversation with P-123. This is going too far and needs to stop. Do not discuss me again in such a way before letting me know on my talk page first. Mbcap (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I too noticed the same thing, and I congratulate you Techno, you are the master of socks and have defeated Wikipedia for years. You disguise yourself very well. What gave you away though is that you couldn't help but give yourself a pat on the back by saying "I just had a look at technophant's page so all I can say is I am flattered since he seems to have some experience". That's corny.

You also say "I have only been here for a few weeks", yet I see you do Reviewer's edits like this [114] that no editor that has only been here for a few weeks can do. Actually, you are one of probably two Reviewer's who could do them on the ISIS article. You should just request an unblock rather than blatantly beat the system. 74.115.1.70 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am flattered indeed with your accusation as well. I hope someone investigates me. Please could you tell me where to take a sock puppet allegation for investigation. I will file the complaint myself about me being a sock puppet. I can assure you though it will be found groundless as I have never had an account on Wikipedia ever. This is beyond belief. "What gave you away though is...blah blah", I could not help but laugh. Clearly you guys/ladies have a long history with this technophant editor. By the way what is a reviewer edit. I went on the link which is just me putting a template on the article. If that is what you mean by a reviewer edit and you mean a new editor would not be able to learn so quickly as to know to do that, then I take that as a complement. It has been a steep learning curve. It seems that me being involved in that article is agitating a few people. Let me spell it out for you; your attempts at discouraging my work on that page will only strengthen my resolve. I have valid/reasonable issues to deal with. I am a new editor who has never had an account before, I spotted a POV lead in an article and decided to do something. By the way did this technophant person have similar suggestions to what I have. If he did, I feel sorry for you in that you are so biased that any attempt to introduce neutrality into an article makes you level such insane accusation against a new editor. No wonder editors are leaving wikipedia, you do not know how to treat a new member of the team. Mbcap (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mbcap - You can't file a sockpuppet report on yourself, to the best of my knowledge. If anyone thinks that Mbcap is User:Technophant, they can either file a sock-puppet report themselves, or stop the aspersions. Sock-puppetry is a very serious offense, and the unsupported allegation of sock-puppetry is a serious personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Robert McClenon. Yes I asked at the teahouse how to do it and they said I cannot file an investigation against myself. I agree with you that it is a serious offence and also something that is against my own standards of probity. So please could I request any other editors who wish to accuse me, to file an investigation, otherwise cease the allegations. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, User:Mbcap: there's nothing at all wrong with bringing these suspicions to an administrator familiar with the case. The only thing wrong would be if the IPs are making a habit of bringing up their suspicions at the drop of hat.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kww, thank you for your input. Is it allowed in wikipedia to copy and paste a discussion from another editors talk page to my own. I would just like to keep this discussion as a record on my own talk page. Please do let me know. Mbcap (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I just found this thread after responding to this edit by Mbcap. I assume that you are familiar with the Technophant case? I am not but something is a bit odd with that and some other contributions. It might be helpful if you indicate whether SPI is the way to go (it usually is, obviously, but I'd have to reinvent the wheel by studying the past goings-on). - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Either file an investigation to have me investigated otherwise hold your tongue. If one other person accuses me, I am going to WP:AN/I. I have had enough. Mbcap (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here is quite adequate and quite permissible, Mbcap.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww, this is undignified.There are constant accusations of being a sock puppet. I have high standards of probity and until a few days ago did not even know what a sock puppet was. I think anyone who is a sock puppet should be indefinable banned for being intentionally deceitful. I would never stoop so low as to be a "sock puppet". This is a personal attack against me and I will not tolerate it. I respectfully ask again, file an investigation or I am going to ask at the AN/I to resolve this once and for all. Mbcap (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI is not now, never has been, and never will be a required portion of the sockpuppet process. Most socks are taken care of by bringing evidence directly to an admin familiar with the case. If people are posting accusations far and wide, that's a problem. If they are discussing it here, that's completely acceptable.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What is an SPI? Mbcap (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There has recently been an ANI in and around which a number of IP addresses added contributions. One of those 74.115.1.70 that also contributed here, has bee blocked by user:Timotheus Canens, others have been listed here. It is possible that some of those IP addresses are being used as socks by Technophant. -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww, would it be all right for me to copy and paste this section to my talk page to keep as part of my record. Mbcap (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Technophant. Your intention is to get PBS in trouble at a later date because he blocked you. Just stop trolling and get on with your miserable life. WP:DUCK 23.27.248.88 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate you raising concerns in the appropriate place as stated by Kww, I will always challenge any claims laid against me that are unfounded. You are the fourth accuser and also the first to accuse me of being a duck which I have just learnt about thanks to the link. If you are certain I am this Technophant editor, why do you not submit an SPI, considering a block is done for good reason and working around said block seems like a serious violation in Wikipedia. I suspect that you and your fellow confederate's are orchestrating a concerted efforts to coerce me into silence and thus shown yourself (I suspect as), an amalgamated protoplasmic mishmash of amoebas who lack the necessary ability to be be impartial and dispassionate, something which could only be described as a bastion, of collective but below par mediocrity. Since I am no sock puppet or duck and do not see any evidence that has merit, these futile attempts to shut me up for raising valid concerns, only compel me to redouble my efforts when time is more plentiful. Mbcap (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Query about a block

There's an unblock request at User talk:Racing121, relating to an IP range block you placed last March, giving the reason as "webhostblock". (Block log entry: [115]) The editor claims to be editing from a kindle paperwhite, which I can imagine might appear as a web host. I am unable to find any edits from the IP range, having checked over the last three years. Is an unblock reasonable? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be granted, JamesBWatson. That's a part of Amazon's elastic compute cloud range, which has hosts being dynamically created and deleted. We've seen a number of attacks from such ranges, which is why I finally wound up blocking all of them. I would normally suggest IPBE, but, given that the only other edit from the account making the request was vandalism, I don't see the advantage of doing so in this particular case.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Did I do something to make you mad?

Kww, instead of responding to you on the acupuncture talk page (where I just don't feel this discussion belongs) I am going to politely request that you please assume good faith towards me and other editors. And if another editor defends me, please don't call him/her an "accomplice" because that just makes the battleground problem worse. Listen, I know you and I share differing opinions about some subjects but I hope one thing we both can agree that politeness and collegiality is the best attitude to take, especially on talk pages that easily become war zones. That said, if I have done anything to offend you along the way, I sincerely apologize to you. I'm frankly kind of shocked at how you have been responding to me lately, but, I don't know, maybe I did something to make you mad? If that's the case, please let me know so that we can work it out. LesVegas (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, LesVegas, lying makes me angry. What do you find surprising about that? You need to look into the definition of "assume": it's the default position one takes in the absence of data. In this case, I no longer suffer from an absence of data. I have no reason at all to believe that your goal in editing is to ensure that our articles about science-related subjects portray the consensus of science about those subjects. Instead, it appears to be to amplify any source that portrays acupuncture and similar topics in a positive light, and to minimize the preponderance of sources that dismiss them as nonsense.—Kww(talk) 01:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww, when all uninvolved editors, 3 of them, strongly argue one side of the argument is that not "broad consensus amongst uninvolved editors?" Why do you persist in calling me a liar? Nobody has supported your accusations that I'm a liar and you're now doubling down. Listen, my goal is to adhere to NPOV and other policies, not push an agenda. It just so happens that Chinese culture is a subject I have some expertise in, and when I see that an article is slanted (my first edit on "acupuncture" was putting a NPOV tag on the article) and edit accordingly, don't take that for pushing some "anti-science" agenda. On John's talk page you said you wanted me, Jayaguru-Shishya and A1Candidate banned, not for breaking any rules, but just for not editing from the same skeptic POV you and other editors have. Listen, when I first noticed that article, you know what I noticed? That it gave more prominence to Felix Mann than it did Kiiko Matsumoto, Sun Simiao, Li Dong Yuan, Hua Tuo or even the Yellow Emperor! That showed me right there that a strong skeptic POV dominated the article, squeezing out not just opposing viewpoints but even scholarship! I thought my expertise could be useful to the community on this article, but my edits are removed, rules are broken and now I'm being personally attacked. How can rationality prevail in an environment like this? Kww, you seem to operate from a fixed standpoint that acupuncture is obvious pseudoscience, so you want to dismiss any reliable source (by MEDRS standards) as unreliable if it finds "validity" to "pseudoscience." In other words, it's not the quality of the source, it's the outcome of the source which matters to you. Further, editors who use these MEDRS-compliant sources should be banned. Even further, when one editor comes to another's defense, he's an accomplice in the crime! That's not how Wikipedia works. But, listen, everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure even admins have bad days where they act unreasonably. I'm willing to forget about this whole incident and move past it. I'm really sincere in my desire to not further a big battleground here. LesVegas (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I already brought this to your attention Kww, didn't I?[116] I notified you about behaving according to WP:CIVIL: calling anyone a "liar" certainly isn't part of it. As an experienced editor, you should certainly know to comment on the specific edits, not attacking the user. Being an administrator clearly doesn't make it any better for you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did make a comment on a specific edit, Jayaguru-Shishya: LesVegas consciously and intentionally lied (in that he knowingly made a false statement with the intent of deceiving others), and I commented on the nature of his lie and the fact that he was lying. It would be better if you focused on persuading him that telling obvious untruths is unhelpful rather than saying that I should not point it out.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think his point was that it's more civil to say, "I couldn't confirm what you said, Les Vegas. Could you show me where you see broad consensus?" and giving me an opportunity to respond, instead of immediately calling me a liar and repeating it over and over, even when nobody else agrees with you. Since you're still doubling down, I will do it too. In addition to there being "broad consensus" that NCCAM is MEDRS compliant, there's also broad consensus I'm not a liar (: LesVegas (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think that pointing out that not only did you lie, you defended the lie and now persist in the lie is of any benefit to you.—Kww(talk) 06:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So if you call me a liar and I defend myself, that somehow makes me even more wrong? And when I actually give you evidence to the contrary, and explain myself, you ignore all that, double down and persist? And when others argue on my behalf, they're "accomplices"? You said on John's talk page that you wanted me and others banned for having certain beliefs, not for bad behavior. When you wanted me and others banned for essentially being "thought criminals" I was just kind of amused because that would never go anywhere. But now that you've trumped up some charges that I'm a liar, I really have a problem with that. You know me and others could never be banned for merely holding whatever beliefs you only assume we have. But if you are indeed trying to fabricate something substantive to pin me with, I at least want to tell you that I'm aware of what you're doing. If that's not your intent, than I apologize for even going there. In any event, call me whatever you want from now on, I won't respond any further to any of this. LesVegas (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no fabrication, LesVegas. You knew your assertion was false, and you hoped that placing it where you did would deceive others into believing it had merit. It's not the act of defending yourself that causes trouble: it's the initial effort at deceit that does so.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Block of 200.83.101.225

Hi: Your block of this IP was on mistaken grounds: there is no block evasion. The IP user is the subject of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, but following discussion at AN/I (two discussions in fact IIRC), the user was unblocked under an agreement documented at User talk:190.163.4.132#Unstoppable trolling. That said, you may wish to reblock on different grounds. The other admin with knowledge of the IP's record who helped negotiate the agreement is Drmies. I recently unblocked the IP over the holidays with the blocking admin's permission - I believe it was PhilKnight. So I'll stay out of it this time, but you are mistaken in the reason you gave for the block, and I am therefore disturbed to see the IP saying you have undone several of their edits on those grounds? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This editor should be blocked whenever they turn up and I support the block on grounds that the user is a long term abuser. It is a mistake to negotiate with them in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I guess we should go back to AN/I, or maybe AN. However, when blocked by KWW they were neither blocked nor banned. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• 200.83.101.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for the links. Jehochman ^Talk 16:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, thank you for your efforts in this matter. Where was there a community decision to unblock this user at WP:AN or WP:ANI? I'd like to review that discussion. Additionally, what's the procedure to close a long term abuse report if an abusive editor reforms? I think the user will keep getting blocked so long as the long term abuse report is still open. Admins don't have ESP to know that a deal has been made for an editor to return. The editor keeps hopping to new IPs, so there's no easy way for other admins to become aware of a conversation on some random IP talk page, or a note on some random IP block log. I think that if a deal is made, the user should be required to register an account and use only that one account so the activities can be monitored to prevent recidivism. This is not a normal situation where IP editing should be allowed; the user proved over a long period of time that they couldn't be trusted. If they return, Wikipedia editors have a legitimate need to scrutinize the user's activities. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• That LTA file needs to be destroyed. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

[Only one ec, wow!] Here is the trail at the admins' noticeboards as I have been able to assemble it.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Extreme personal attack (August 2014)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#User:SummerPhD (September 2014, started by the IP)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#How to handle the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse.2FBest known for IP page (October 2014: ban proposed but not enacted)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#False accusations of vandalism (October 2014, started by the IP)

The noticeboard (AN/I?) was protected during one of the two last, and an epic revert war occurred on the IP's talk page. See the section I previously linked to: User talk:190.163.4.132#Unstoppable trolling. So since the situation was not a ban, but a cycle of block evasion and re-blocking with the original block lying so far back in the past that no one could remember what led to it, and since the IP has never been a vandal, we decided on an experimental reset. The existence of a long-term abuse page does not in itself indicate that a user is bannable or blockable and revertable on sight, and we edited it to note the agreement that had been reached. The last time I looked, it was up to date except for this latest block. I think we do have to go to a noticeboard again, so I won't bloat this talkpage further by sharing my views here regarding where we stand at this point, but I do believe that editors who have not already registered an account have a right to continue not to register an account, whatever their reasons may be (little though I understand that choice). And although I seem to be much slower spotting this editor than others - possibly because I would not normally edit the vast majority of articles they edit - they've never made any secret of being the same person. (OK, probably multiple edit conflicts.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely why would we destroy that long-term abuse report, Drmies? Didn't this IP get right back into an edit war just recently? What's the reason for believing that the history of this editor should be removed? If, as Yngvadottir indicates, there was some kind of "experimental reset", hasn't that reset failed? Bear in mind that I tend to agree with this editor's POV as it goes towards these damn "best known for"/"most famous for"/"famously known for" crap.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(Drmies is on mobile and may have difficulty responding) Because it gives the impression a ban is in force against the user, leading well meaning admins to block for block evasion when there is no block in effect? As I say, you may wish to reblock with another rationale - such as edit warring, although I see the warring having ceased and discussion occurring on several articles - but other rationales don't also lead to automatic reversion of the blocked user's edits, which is being claimed to have happened. We clearly have substantial community disagreement over the merits of this person's edits. That suggests we're headed to a noticeboard again. But there's my cheeky answer. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend placing a note on the LTA page that the editor is getting a second chance and put a collapse box around the prior content. I also think the user should create and use a single account for accountability. You are welcome to use ANI if you feel that more discussion is needed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I note that his unblock request has been denied by another admin. In general, I don't see the fuss here. He was unblocked, suffered recidivism, and is now blocked again. Should I detect that he has the same difficulties again, I will block him again. Why would we treat this editor differently from any other? The only real problem we have here is that since he uses IPs, I had to resort to a timed block. Had he been using an account, I would have indefed it and we would be done.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• I should have not accepted the very existence of that LTA page. As Yngvadottir says, it gives the impression that we are dealing with a banned user--and Kevin, you can play de vermoorde onschuld all you like, you knew who we were dealing with or you wouldn't have rolled back those edits claiming the editor was banned. Had he been using an account he would have never racked up the block log that he did. Or she. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I knew exactly who I was dealing with, Drmies, and have never claimed otherwise. What I didn't realize is that you had thought you had any business giving him some kind of unblock after a long history of block evasion, and that you had, in fact, tried to do so. I don't know why you would think you had that capability. I especially don't see why, having done so, you didn't immediately undo it at the first sign of trouble.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm trying to parse this. You're asking why I didn't unblock even though I have no right to? Maybe because I am not the kind of asshole admin/abuse enabler you think I am? Your entire account here is bullshit; you are still acting as if we're dealing with a banned user. I know how much you enjoy hitting "mass rollback", no matter what the fallout is. You and a few others seem to be getting way too much joy out of this. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• We are miscommunicating, then. The moment the IP evaded its first block, however many years ago that was and for whatever reason, it became subject to immediate reblocking. That's the norm: we don't tolerate block evasion, even if we like the edits being performed. It's not some fondness for mass rollback on my part, its the firm belief that the only way to enforce blocks is to enforce them, and that repeated block evasion must not be rewarded. Are you seriously claiming that this is not a serial block evader?—Kww(talk) 22:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you two, don't argue about it. Drmies is going to supervise this editor. If anybody has any problems with this IP, just go to Drmies and ask for help. Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, we've been arguing about this (and the more general business of banned editors) for years; we're not likely to stop now. You may know I don't shop at the Pottery Barn, but I'll try. If it weren't for Yngvadottir I wouldn't know what to do. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I am a bit surprised to see Kww getting chewed out here. His response was completely consistent with how we react to any edit warring IP. I will also point out that WP:ADMIN says Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think this happened.

This is all getting to be a bit much. Chillum 23:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment : Why 200.83.101.225 was unblocked? I agree with PhilKnight that the IP has not changed his disruptive editing style, including the spam of maintenance tags and removal of the line "best known". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• He's unblocked because some administrators do not believe in enforcing blocks.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Plus that IP is playing that admin like a fiddle – two admins, in fact. It's becoming embarrassing. I have said for some time that this IP receives special treatment, and here's yet more proof. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, being blocked for spurious reasons and having hours of my work pointlessly destroyed is exactly the kind of special treatment I am used to. If there had been a block to enforce, Kww might have a point. Enforcing blocks that don't exist is not something administrators are allowed to do. As for removal of "best known", yes, I do like to try to get articles to comply with core policies. As for "spam of maintenance tags", I have no idea what you might be on about. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom

I think the Acu request is just the tip of an iceberg around fringe and pseudoscience. I'll think about my statement with a clear head tomorrow. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

[[117]]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bonaire

Your reverts at Bonaire incorrectly use the Dutch version of Saint - Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia. Atsme☯^Consult 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If it helps - [118] Type in Sint and the English translation will read St which is how it is listed at the Gvt site as well. Atsme☯^Consult 02:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[119] - vandal - or could it be someone you know? Looks like a sock based on the IP address. You're an admin, right? Atsme☯^Consult 08:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

oj simpson even says he is kim kardashians godfather

the relationship isn't highly unlikely but a known fact http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-oj28/2 on page 2 in this article from the LA Times "My goddaughter is being interviewed," Simpson announces. As Kardashian chats about being young and rich in Hollywood, Riccio and a man seeking a photo with Simpson make salacious comments about her exotic beauty. The former NFL star ignores them. "I was in the hospital when she was born," he says softly. 80.1.219.140 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Awards

I will absolutely not edit war over these lists, but your intervention is unwarranted. These awards are non-contentious material and no harm will be caused by leaving these lists intact with an appropriate template. You need to learn to apply WP:IAR in those cases. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Talk:Kim Kardashian.
Message added 16:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits at Teahouse

Can you explain your reversions of my edits at the Teahouse. You may excuse me but it seemed to be a complete lack of good faith. I did not delete others' comments as you accused, but rather put into regular wiki formatting because it was incredibly confusing. I did not appreciate your actions nor your exhibition of bad faith. Arfæst! 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at the diff. You've both modified and deleted comments by other editors, Arfæst. Do not repeat it.—Kww(talk) 23:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I modified because it was both against formatting conventions and confusing. You will notice I did not deleted any comments but rather move them from the top of a section to a bottom as it should have been. I ask you to stop your bad faith reversions. Arfæst! 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I don't think we're on the same page. I will stop editing the Teahouse until we come to an understanding. Can you point out which edit you think I deleted? Arfæst! 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will admit to having been wholly confused by your rearrangement of another editor's comments. You did not actually delete any material, just modified it.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I modified their comments was because it confused me. However I am fine with leaving the page as is. Arfæst! 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgive my denseness, but....

Hi Kww, continuing from Talk:Acu: I still don't follow your objection -- if you're still objecting -- to the timing of my diff.

• You replied to me on 1/22
• I replied on 1/26 (and clarified that comment also on 1/26, which is the diff whose timing you objected to)
• You replied on 1/28 and you asked me not to edit comments after you'd replied to them.

What am I missing? Best regards, Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That I had relied later to someone replying to you. Once your content has been replied to, you shouldn't modify it.—Kww(talk) 16:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey M8 - You are missing an understanding of your COI, science, the placebo effect, and how big a con acu actually is. You're welcome. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: In my most recent diff above, was replying to you, and it had nothing do you with your reply to LesVegas. But if your objection is to the fact that I threaded it above your reply, point taken, thanks. @Roxy the dog: If you don't have something intelligent to offer, it looks poor to comment. You're welcome. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing with a COI such as yours is unconscionable, and your ping didn't work. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this actionable?

QuackGuru has attacked me and behaved very poorly with respect to the RfC at the TCM article. Does this merit admin attention? I want to avoid drama; I just feel QG needs to drop the stick, and will not unless warned. If you have the time, please see this section at his user talk and section following. Thanks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know from experience that QG can be very frustrating to deal with. Having said that, if your goal is "to avoid drama" you're going about it in a rather counterproductive way. (Granted I've probably just annoyed both of you.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the many cases where QG is right, but being right in completely unproductive fashion. I meant what I said: that RFC was so flawed that I will reopen it in a few weeks. QG is frequently patient when he sees that someone else is working on getting him what he needs, so I've made it clear to him that I will at least get him a fresh opportunity to be heard.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris -- I get it, but QG needs to hear the warning from someone other than me or he'll ignore it. Kww -- Process should never prevail over content, so sure, I agree that if he's right on substance and wrong on process, then that's not worth a warning. But the IDHT -- hardly the first instance of it with QG -- is not OK: even though he disagrees with the RfC result, it was completely obvious that I edited in accordance with it. And his continued attacks are not OK either. He did the exact same thing I did -- similar edits to a section over several weeks -- and portrayed my conduct as wrong. Full-on GAME, KETTLE and BATTLEGROUND. -05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas withdrew his request

LesVegas withdrew his request but is now trying to get an individual admin to review the case. This appears to be canvassing. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You mean he's actually going to an admin's talk page to complain about another editor? That is just not right. Your kettle runneth over, QuackGuru. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

IP on 0RR

I'm sure you remember this guy [120], and that he ended up on a 0RR restriction. Well, here he is again [121], and here are some of his latest reverts [122], [123] (same article), [124], [125]. That's the IP he's used since 26 January; obviously the guy flits around. No point in my talking to Drmies about it. I never fell for the IP's BS promise that he'd abide by 0RR, and I don't think you did either. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, whatever. Hey, Kevin, I have a totally unrelated question for you, so we can prove we're still on speaking terms. What do you know about/have you ever been to Surinam? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have Surinamese friends that I can find things out from. Aside from that, watching and reading Hoe Duur Was De Suiker, so not much of anything useful.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Do any of your friends work at or attend the Anton de Kom University? I'm hatching an evil student exchange scheme. Thanks Kevin, Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, all ex-pats living on Bonaire. It's a fairly common migration path for a Surinamese to gain EU citizenship: they fit in well in the Antilles, making the 10-year residency requirement palatable, which then gives them a Dutch passport.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds pretty clever and agreeable. Well, if you ever run into one who knows someone, please drop me a line. That's not to say I don't want to go to Bonaire for a summer or two... Drmies (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Film awards sourcing

Kww, to clarify, regarding citations on list of awards articles: it wouldn't matter where (next to the year, category, or result) citations are located in the tables, right ? --Lapadite (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: I would make a summary of awards at the top of the table, and source it like any paragraph. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a summary of major awards won in the lead is the norm on these articles. I mean for the tables that follow it, which expand on other awards won, besides Oscar, GG, SAG. --Lapadite (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? I didn't mean the lead, I meant directly above the table. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The term "inline citation" would preclude a list of sources at the top. Per year seems to be a reasonable compromise that most people would accept, although per award is the strict definition of "inline".—Kww(talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Lapadite (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael Keaton

So, does every table need to have a citation to be allowed now? Either the page needs to be fixed or the original table re-added to the main article. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Always did, Musdan77: unsourced contentious material about living people hasn't been allowed for some time. It shouldn't be in the main article, either.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams only has 2 tables with cites, List of awards and nominations received by Carey Mulligan has none, List of awards and nominations received by Donna Summer has none (in the tables), List of awards and nominations received by Mary Mary has none, List of awards and nominations received by Monk has one, List of awards and nominations received by Morgan Freeman has none (in the tables), List of awards and nominations received by Raven-Symoné has none, List of awards and nominations received by Reese Witherspoon has one, List of awards and nominations received by Robert De Niro has none, List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Bullock has none, List of awards and nominations received by Tom Hanks has 2.

And right now Michael Keaton has a section just with a link to a non-existent page (that redirects back). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

All of those articles are in violation of WP:BLP and are subject to deletion or redirection at any time.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Counterargument

User:Shii has been notified of the sanctions 23:39, 3 February 2015.[126]

On User:Shii's it says "I have an academic background in the fields of religious studies and traditional Japanese and Chinese thought."[127] Therefore User:Shii is interested in the subject and can be considered involved.

User:Shii wrote "According to Nature, TCM is "fraught with pseudoscience". This was suggested by several editors and is an accurate direct quote, which was requested by most editors."[128] There were no "several editors" claiming to only want use that specific wording. There were editors who wanted to include the part "fraught with pseudoscience" but not delete everything else the source said.

User:Shii claims "To clarify, my comment as an uninvolved admin is meant to close the RfC and determine the consensus wording, but not stop any ongoing discussion."[129]

User:Shii now claims "As I already said, I determined a consensus as an uninvolved administrator and closed the RfC, but I am not shutting down further discussion. If you think this was "wrong" please go ahead and state your counterargument."[130]

But I did state a counterargument. Editors did continue to improve the wording while the RfC was underway. QuackGuru (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I beg of you, QG, let this drop for a few weeks. I promise that I will attempt to get it readdressed, but pushing at it now will get you nowhere and will solidify your opponent's perception that you won't ever let an issue drop. You have to for now, or we will never get the RFC overturned.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi Kww, we appear to be experiencing some issues as a result of there being too many edit filters operational at the moment. Is Special:AbuseFilter/81 still required or could it be turned off for now? It seems to have been in log only mode since 2011 and has a relatively high run time. Sam Walton (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Samwalton9, it's got too high of a false positive rate to do more than log, but I monitor it fairly closely. Since I'm monitoring it manually anyway, I'll go remove some of the logic that prevents false positives, which should reduce its cost.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Keaton awards

Give it time, users will put references. No need to revert just because people haven't done it yet. Seriously no need to do that, users will do it, HOW ABOUT YOU! how come you don't put any references and try and improve it instead of making user's do it, you can help out too. This is suppose to be a collaborative site. Challenge me? Never say that to me again. I didn't even put anything other than that table to make people realize that that page needs source. Don't revert again and don't say it's unsource, we know.

Unusual death

You removed my entry to the List of Unusual Deaths page under argument "no reliable source describing death as unusual". Can't we just use common sense here and admit that a severe allergic reaction that only 0.05-2% of world population suffer, and usually to venom from insect bites or stings, foods, and medication, caused by dog's semen is unusual? One of the sources I provided is an online news magazine - this story had been making news, even years after it happened, doesn't this mean it's unusual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.12.178 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We've had RFCs and AFDs that all came to the same conclusion: only reliable sources count, not the personal opinion of editors. That's not surprising, because that's the foundation of Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Is it because I did not give a reliable source or because my provided sources did not spell out "unusual" so that we can be sure that "death by sex with a dog" sounds pretty unusual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.12.178 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what's hard to get: neither of our opinions about what's unusual count.—Kww(talk) 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would these sources do? The last one places the story in the "bizarre" section of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.171.12.178 (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

None of those would pass WP:RS, no.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Headlineplanet.com which mirrors Mediatraffic

Kww, I would like to report an ongoing issue at Taylor Swift discography wherein editors/fanboys are continuously adding Headlineplanet.com as source for claiming US as well as WW sales. Check the source I listed. Although not mentioned it clearly mirrors Mediatrafic, check out their album list which shows 1989 selling 120,000 units same as what headlineplanet reported, as well as the home page, which mirrors the same content, " Taylor Swift's '1989' climbs back at no.2 with another 120,000 sales. After only 14 weeks the album breaks through the 6 million border with a total of 6,040,000 sales". This should be stopped and I reverted twice pointing them out to WP:BADCHARTS and the mirroring of Mediatraffic, but was reverted back. I will not revert further since it would result in 3RR, so asking you to take measures as needed. I'm raising a discussion in the talk page also. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

Someone has requested temporary full protection for this page. Personally, I would. However, I'm not sticking my head in that blender again, and I thought perhaps you would like to weigh in on that to assist a third-party . Or you may not! Just thought that would be your thing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir Smirnov

Awaiting your input at Talk:List of unusual deaths. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj discography

Hi I was wondering if you could take a look at Nicki Minaj discography in the Studio Albums section, there seems to be a few users placing false data with unreliable or no sources, thanks. (talk) 18:58, 15 Feb 2015 (UTC)

Joemeservy editing logged out

Since you just blocked 147.222.234.188, you probably know about my discussion with Joemeservy at User talk:Joemeservy#Persistent editing while logged out, violations of WP:MULTIPLE. Joemeservy has a serious conflict of interest because he is a senior agent manager for the bands Imagine Dragons and the Killers.[131] Kevin Gorman brought Joemeservy's case to the COIN back in October 2013 but Joemeservy apparently has not learned from it. He continues to spread his edits out over multiple IPs in order to avoid full scrutiny.

Anyway, since you have blocked Joe's IP 147.222.234.188, can you also block his IP 67.160.112.238? It's the same person, the same stuff, the same reason. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande awards

Dear User:Kww, Please know that everything I edit on List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande is double-checked and indeed true. So don't make rude accusations of my editing. And by the way, a user is not supposed to threaten another user about being blocked from editing. User:Hashtagsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagggsss (talk • contribs) 01:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but for her awards page, she has won 32 awards from 84 nominations. Her awards page does not list all of the awards she has won. For example for the We Love Pop Awards, Ariana has been nominated twice but that is still not listed on the page. The same thing is with a few other awards including Billboard Mid-Year Awards - 2 wins 2 extra nominations and the World Music Awards - 7 nominations. This is also supported on other sources. Thank You, User: Hashtaggsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagggsss (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Kww, I am appalled that you blocked me for 48 hours. The things I added to the awards page were 100% true. Just because you have the power to block a user, does not mean you should. A block should be for a good reason, and not because, I did not add background information. And if you have such a problem with that, you can do it yourself. So I think it's best if you keep your distance, and worry about actual problems on Wikipedia. Thank You, User:Hashtaggsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagggsss (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear User: Kww why did you take down the two pending nominations for the 2015 Kids Choice Awards? They are both belong on her page. Once a again, you need to understand that if you want a citation, you can DO IT YOURSELF So those two nominations need to stay up or it is considered vandalism. Thank You, User: Hashtaggsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagggsss (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear User: Kww I am getting tired of arguing with you over this topic. If we're being honest, this is not an important topic, there are many bigger matters on Wikipedia and trust me, this is not an important matter. I am done discussing this matter with you, I will be removing this conversation off of my talk page, and drop this deal. A block should be for much more important matters and I do not always need to add a citation to every award Ariana Grande has ever received. Once again, if you have a problem with that, you can fix it yourself, and i don't need to be dragged into it. I am done discussing this with you, if you carry this on, I will make my own attempt to block you. Thank You, User: Hashtaggsss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashtagggsss (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Biruitorul block

I am quite surprised and quite disturbed by the block here. Biruitorul says at WP:ANI that these were his IP addresses: how do his actions constitute an attempt to "mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus"? By volunteering that they're his, he isn't contributing to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, or attempting to avoid scrutiny, and the bit about "Editing project space" applies to undisclosed alternate accounts. Moreover, he used them to revert blatant damage to the page; this is not someone reverting good-faith edits to an article or deleting content from an AFD — it's someone fighting precisely that. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend has a compelling rationale. Biruitorul was doing it for better and he was probably not even aware what he was doing, however this is not the first time when Раціональне анархіст has removed the comments of others after labeling them to be WP:NPA,[132][133][134] his own behavior is highly disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time taking the preceding editor's commentary in good faith given the nonsense he put up on my TP (subsequently having his argument shot down by an invited admin). Of the three instances he lists, the last two are from my own TP (where anything goes, as he should well know) concerning the aforementioned nonsensical exchange (it led to my banishing him from my TP), while the first example was most certainly a personal attack as it contained a certain seven-letter word and which I myself reverted a minute later. (There is no way that OccultZone could be aware of one without the other, thereby reinforcing my conclusion of bad faith, and leaving it up to the crowd to determine who's the more disruptive and disingenuous editor. Me? I earned a tasty cookie off that.) Regards editing other users in general...I've had it happen to me and deployed with the same rationale and without punishment, so <shrug>. (At least now I know what to do about it in the future). As far as Biruitorul goes, he's gotten away with this multiple-IP stunt twice now, so I assume he's been given enough rope at this point. Pax 06:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: Yes that admin disagreed with your meaningless edits to that list where you were edit warring without looking at the sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are admin Coffee's full comments in that exchange on my TP, where it is abundantly obvious he neither said nor implied any such thing. ...you're not going to make me ask him to come over here and correct you a second time, are you? (He might become annoyed and decide to give each of the names on List of British Bangladeshis a tap to see if any of them are worthy of AfDs; I'm sure you wouldn't that to happen, because most of those articles are crap.) Pax 07:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

His admission after the fact is unimpressive and his assertion that it's OK to edit the same material using his account and three separate IP addresses is false. If he had done it with four separate named accounts, I doubt any of you would have commented on the block.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, I was quite aware that he probably don't know what he is doing and he has said the same in his unblock request. Lets see how others will look. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care how many IP addresses he used: if he'd done it with one, I would have said the same thing. We don't sanction people when their address changes, unless we have evidence that they're intentionally changing it. Imagine that all three edits had been by the same IP address, i.e. he had used just one IP address and the account. Would your response be the same? Again, I am disturbed by sanctioning a user who's restoring wantonly-deleted comments from an AFD: this is close to being something a bot could do. The edit-warring policy wasn't written for people who are enforcing policy against obvious violations, and the sockpuppetry policy wasn't written for people who edit logged-in and logged-out in a transparent fashion. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, if he'd used four separate named accounts and acknowledged them all, I'd be wondering why he had all those accounts. Your account can't change on you in the way that IP addresses can, so someone using three alternate accounts is obviously doing it intentionally and may not have good intentions somewhere else on the project, unless the rationale for three alternates, instead of one alternate, is obvious. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have felt the same way if it was just one. There is no reason to edit the same material from an IP and an account. If people want to edit while logged out using specious reasons, it is their obligation to scrupulously follow all the rules about when it is appropriate and when it is not.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain precisely how his actions intended to, or had the effect of, misleading, deceiving, disrupting, or undermining consensus. Your position of "There is no reason..." would seem to be a significant expansion on the policy, and not in line therewith, especially as in this situation it was done to undo obvious disruption. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here and the user's comments on his talk, I am going to grant the unblock request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it doesn't look like there was any intent to mislead, good call. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"An" Anarchy

Hi, you reverted my edit and stated that it should be "an anarchy," not "anarchy." I think your intentions were good, but Merriam Webster disagrees with you in both examples:

• "Anarchy reigned in the empire's remote provinces." (not 'an anarchy reigned')
• "When the teacher was absent, there was anarchy in the classroom." (not 'there was an anarchy')

No big deal, but I think anarchy is more like a state of affairs, right, e.g. chaos. The correct form is not, "there will be a chaos," or "this is an anarchy", but "there will be chaos," and "this is anarchy." Mind undoing that revert, please? - Jm3 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jm3, I agree that anarchy can be used that way (and most generally is), but that doesn't make it correct in this particular case. We tend to forget that "anarchy" actually is a form of government. Think of these two sentences:

1. In a democracy, the leader is elected by a majority vote of the people.
2. Democracy spread through Western Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Both correct, one referencing a particular instance of a political system, the other referencing the concept. Similarly,

1. In an anarchy, there is no leadership.
2. Anarchy spread as the government fell.

Again, both correct, one referencing a particular instance of a political system, the other referencing the concept.

In our usage, we are referencing a particular instance: we are not an anarchy.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Best known for" IP again

This guy [135] who broke his 0RR and got blocked for a week... Apparently the fact that he was blocked now means the 0RR doesn't apply any more? Is this normal? I see from Yngvadottir's talk page that this seems to be the case, yet she was unable to provide me with a satisfactory reason. Despite Yngavdottir's claim that he has "improved his behaviour", he has continued the edit warring and name calling, and a recent trip to AN3RR for edit warring resulted in Drmies brushing it under the carpet.[136] Thoughts? If I'm out of line then fair enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "best known for IP"

Re [137]:

The IP broke 0RR roughly one month after it was agreed to. They were blocked for one week. One week after that, they were back at the 3RR noticeboard, but were not blocked. They were briefly blocked for a personal attack (and unblocked by an admin unaware of their past). According to Yngvadottir "I think what we now have, as demonstrated by the block and the equally fast unblock, is an editor among editors, not an abuse case. ...I don't consider they need my special attention any more." (Yngvadottir is, however, still following the editor and mopping up after his disagreements (see the edits following the incidents the IP used as backup on the latest 3RR case). Yngvadottir has since stated the editor is no longer under 0RR. I'm trying to clarify if Yngvadottir feels they are under 0RR or not (and if not, why). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Per my similar question to Kww above, Kww has made a decision to block again. See the LTA page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking 200.83.101.199. After 5/6 years of removing vandalism I quit editing because of comments/accusations made by that IP. Again, Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Downblouse

Please talk:downblouse#Comment on new image. Revert if you want, but there needs to be mutual discussion per WP:BRD.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee blanking

re [138] -- did you receive a request from Coffee off-wiki? NE Ent 20:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, he had deleted it, which was impermissible. I restored it, but blanked it as a courtesy once I did so.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. NE Ent 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that we generally don't allow deletion of usertalk history, but did you ask Coffee whether there were any particular revisions in the history that contained personal information or were of concern to him, before restoring the page wholesale? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, and if he chose to remove such entries one at a time, I would raise no objection. I examined the recent history and didn't see anything but what I would view as an obviously stressful interaction, and that stressful interaction is why I immediately blanked it.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability (music)

I have made a proposal for a change to the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability (music). You have discussed similar issues on the article's talk page and would appreciate your input. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Do all of these guidelines imply GNG or are they stand-alone?. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Admin

I need an administrator to block a disruptive editor on the Nicki Minaj discography article. The user constantly adds info without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annvarie (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, do you think you could follow through on what you said and block VishXscape4 for his constant disruptive editing? Thanks, Azealia911 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of edit at observable universe

Hi,

What is your rationale for the deletion of the edit by an IP at observable universe? As I recall, the deleted edit was unbolding text that shouldn't have been bolded and a few other minor edits. Or is there something I missed? Your entry in the deletion log doesn't specify the reason. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP is evading his block. See the IP's block log and talk page.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then why not simply undo the edits instead of deleting them? Block evasion is certainly a valid reason to undo edits, but not to delete them so others can't see the history, at least per WP:CRD. At the very least, it would be easier for others if the deletion log included the reason, which your deletions don't do. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This particular editor has been at it for years, so the handling has escalated beyond the norm. I'll leave better comments in the deletion logs in the future.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK; thanks. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

J. K. Simmons

Wow, what the heck are you doing there? You went way too far (like "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"), and not in accordance with WP:UNSOURCED. You said, "unsourced material removed", which is not true. It wasn't completely unsourced -- which is why I added the "BLP sources section" template. The reason we have these templates is to give editors a chance (a reasonable amount of time) to fix the issue. Filmography sections don't have to have every item cited as long as they are supported in the main body -- or even if they are linked to a film/series article that can verify it. And are not needed unless they are "challenged or likely to be challenged". And making such huge deletions should be explained better -- at least with a link to an MOS or, even better, in a post on the talk page -- telling why it was done and what would be needed to fix it. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue links aren't sources, you should know better than that. Editors have had a reasonable amount of time to address the issue: each and every moment that passed before they added the material in the first place. Vanishingly few of those rows had all data sourced, and none of them had correct citations. Tags are never the answer to a problem.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Read what I said. I didn't say that links are sources, but sources may be found on those linked-to articles for verification. You should know better than doing what you did. How could it be a reasonable amount of time when I had just added the template -- and then after that you delete the whole thing? And there was no discussion. That is not constructive editing -- and not assuming good faith. It would be one thing if it was controversial or potentially libelous or contentious material, but a filmography table is none of those things. It's not "potentially harmful". And what was incorrect about the citation for TV Giude.com? Give me one example of a filmography section table that meets your criteria. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing through a blue link is no different from using a Wikipedia article as a source. The reference to the external source needs to be in the article where the claim is made, not somewhere else. It's true that the bulk of filmographies are not correctly cited. Tags are optional: there's nothing that requires their use, and there's nothing that implies that once used, a bad article is protected from correction for some indeterminate period of time. If, indeed, it is easily verified that J.K. Simmons was in five episodes of Men At Work, someone that cares can easily find a source for that fact and add it back: you may note that the TV Guide source that was attached to that claim did not contain that information.—Kww(talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

But you want a source for EVERY FILM & TV SHOW HE'DONE! It's not right what you're doing by the way.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC))

Of course I do, Atomic Meltdown. Every statement made in any Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable. Random assertions by unknown editors are not the foundation for an encylopedia article.—Kww(talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, Filmography sections do not have to have every item cited. These tables are like infoboxes or lead sections, where they're an at-a-glance overview of the main body, so they don't need sources. If it's not a criteria for a bio article to be Featured then it's not a requirement. Who said anything about "bad article is protected from correction"? You seem to be ignoring the most important parts of my posts -- based on policy/guidelines. And not once have you given any link to back up your view. I asked you to give an example, but you obviously can't. What makes you think that you can set new rules/guidelines -- which goes against consensus? You seem to be on some power trip (when you really don't have that kind of power). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not on a power trip, nor is there a consensus to include unsourced material. Now, if you want to include a filmography that is limited to blue-linked titles and dates, I'd have very little support for removal. A filmography that includes extraneous information, unlinked and redlinked titles, and notes without sources? I'm on solid ground.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking request

Hi, I need help with blocking a disruptive user, they were warned for editing many articles, adding false chart placements, false single certifications. They have since contiuned their disruptive edits. Any help would be appreciated. Azealia911 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sauravtheking

Discussion on Taylor Swift

Can you take part in a discussion on Taylor Swift's talk page under the heading "Image"? Thank you in advance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection on the Drake Bell article

Kww, thank you for protecting the Drake Bell article. Atomic Meltdown kept reverting sourced information. Sorry for the many reverts WAY over 3RR. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issue via Drmies

Hello. Not long ago there were some discussions about questionable/bad sources on Drmies talk page, and I wrote up some info for you. I was wondering if I'd given you what you needed or if the issue needs more follow up? I'm not really experienced in this area (actually I'm not 100% sure what actions you were seeking to take) so excuse my ignorance. :) I was going to archive my talk page where I wrote it all up but didn't want to if it needs more discussion/research/whatever. Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have what I need, just haven't put it in motion yet.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll go ahead and archive it then, if that's cool. Is it a secret or can I know what's going on? Shinyang-i (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a secret: I'll be putting allkpop.com onto the various blacklists that prevent it from being added to articles. Since I already have filters in place that prevent the addition of unsourced award tables, the combination should help slow this problem down considerably.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's interesting. I don't know the mechanisms behind all that, but I'll be anxious to see how it pans out. Thanks for your help on this issue! While I'm here and on the topic of lists, do you know anyone who'd be good to poke for advice on discographies? I'm at a stuck point. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Already answered that at Drmies's page.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

:) / Thank You!!!

Thank you, you're a good man. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

Truthseeker58

I accidentally warned User:Truthseeker58 for their edit on Intelligent design, before realising they were indefinitely blocked. I cleared the page, but there's still no block template. Just wanted to give you a heads up. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Unverified material added by Atomic Meltdown

Atomic Meltdown repeatedly inserts unverifiable material into the 84th Academy Awards. He keeps on using this source to justify the songs listed in Billy Crystal opening. However, there is no mention WORD-FOR-WORD what the songs actually are to the tune of either in the video itself or the article's text. It's frustrating, and Joseph Prassad and SNUGGUMS have repeatedly warned him.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

There is an unblock request at User talk:192.64.1.242, for a web host block that you placed in April of last year. The request says that the IP address is a college IP address, and not a webhost. This appears to be true, as far as I can see; see for example http://whois.domaintools.com/192.64.1.242. Do you know of any reason not to unblock? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Lifted, JamesBWatson. It appears to be an old Powerhouse range that has moved.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda

I noticed your edit here. You are of course welcome to your opinion that certain editors are engaged in "the promotion of quackery", but you may not express this in these terms at this talk page according to the restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 7#Update. Consider this your warning; I shall certainly enact sanctions if I see you (or anyone else) use language like this again. Please don't. --John (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

John, you will have to explain to me exactly how I can attempt to explain that people should be removed from the project because they do not meet section 1 of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors under "Guidance", then. It's clearly true, and these people clearly should be forcibly shown the door if we hope to make any progress. How can discretionary sanctions be properly enforced if a failure to live up to those expectations cannot be mentioned?—Kww(talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to share your opinion about the optimum nature of the sanctions regime that will best promote normal and harmonious editing either here, at my talk, or at AE. You are not welcome to use such language at article talk though. I would perhaps also opine that if you find you are unable to discuss other editors without using language like "the promotion of quackery", you may need to question whether you yourself are neutral or best-placed to determine who is and is not suitable to take the discussion forwards. Food for thought, perhaps. --John (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem here, John, is that promoting "harmonious editing" is only one goal. The other goal is to ensure that scientifically discredited topics are unambiguously depicted as being discredited and false. You've never shared with me your plan for ensuring that ayurveda, for example, is unambiguously depicted as being scientifically discredited, nor explained why you don't see that as a goal, nor explained why you don't see that editors that chronically edit in the opposite direction should be removed from the project.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I see John removed part of your conversation from this Talk page. Of course, he is perfectly entitled to go against guidelines in this way, but you begin to wonder of you can have a meaningful conversation with him, as it happens a lot, in my experience. He regularly deletes any thing he doesn't like, generally stuff pointing out his weaknesses. You will not pin him down. on his own Talk page, where he controls what is said. , -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) edited Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

At least he didn't tell you "if you don't like that, tough titty" the way he did me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but he did give me the most petty block in the world ever. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, the problem is that you keep casting aspersions on other editors without being able to provide the evidence to back up these accusations. If a cancer treatment is indeed discredited in scientific literature, one would expect it to be described as "quackery" or at least labelled as "disproven" in medical review articles, as you can see here and here. Likewise, a system of medicine does not become discredited until the scientific literature says so. -A1candidate 14:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• A1candidate, I don't "cast aspersions". Ayurveda is a prehistoric mythological system without any credible scientific basis. Its theory of doshas has no basis, no trace of a srota can be found. The only issue that anyone has raised is whether it is excused from the status of "pseudoscience" on the basis of being a form of protoscience: developed before people knew any better, much like humorism.

As for those "aspersions", yes, I firmly believe that if we forcibly expelled every editor that spoke in favor of acupuncture, chiropractic, Ayurveda, and similar forms of false medical treatment we could make more progress faster. The issues of exactly how we should characterise the degree of invalidity and the nature of the invalidity constantly get tangled up with editors that don't understand that these systems are invalid in the first place or, worse yet, refuse to admit that they are because they profit from providing ineffective and dangerous medical treatment to the ignorant and gullible.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Every time you denounce an editor as an advocate of some treatment, you are casting aspersions on them. Have you ever considered the possibility that some editors do not have any financially-vested motivations behind their editing but are simply doing their best to ensure that our articles accurately reflect the scientific literature as far as possible? I fully agree that it is important to fight pseudoscience and to protect the weak and gullible.

However, I don't believe you will achieve any of these goals by invalidating the origins of modern physiology in ancient doctrines. I also don't think you will achieve any of these goals by discrediting two decades of neuroscience research. In fact, I am convinced that you are posing a danger to the process of scientific inquiry every time you attempt to label a decade of experimental studies as pseudoscientific. I am also certain that your attempts to deny all patients a clinically effective aryurvedic intervention is something that honest physicians and clinical researchers should firmly stand up against. -A1candidate 18:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reply is a perfect example, A1candidate. I mentioned acupuncture, you counter with an electrical therapy. I discuss a form of medicine based on a gross misunderstanding of human physiology that involves poisoning patients with heavy metals, bogus oil treatments, fallacious detoxification, and chanting over preparations in order to purify them, and you counter that with meditation. Yes, primitive techniques occasionally stumbled upon useful things, but to use those fortunate accidents as a way to portray the surrounding quagmire as worthy serves to do nothing but mislead the reader. We have numerous editors that seem to be devoted to misleading our readers into believing that these happy accidents excuse the whole. They don't.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned acupuncture, I countered with a form of acupuncture. You discussed ayurveda, I countered with two branches of aryurveda - meditation and yoga. You mentioned humorism, I countered with the fact that these "accidental" findings of the ancient world led to the development of physiology (at least in Greece and the Roman Empire). -A1candidate 22:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't disrespect humorism as an early effort at science, A1candidate, and I don't disrespect ayurveda as a primitive effort to explain things. I can understand the protoscience vs. pseudoscience debate. The key difference is that no one tries to practice humorism any more: if they did, I would think that modern practice would qualify as a pseudoscience, and it's safe to say that humorism is scientifically discredited. Similarly, the bulk of ayurveda has also been discredited, leaving only massage, meditation, and yoga, and (and this is an important point, so I will bold it) any benefit that massage, meditation, and yoga have has no relationship to any explanation offered by ayurveda. As a theoretical framework, ayurveda is nonsense. That its practictioners stumbled on a few useful things doesn't prevent it from being hogwash, and, as a theoretical framework for use today, it's a form of pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have continued the discussion on the talk page. The main point here, is that it's important to fight pseudoscience and identify fraudulent medical practices, but I would argue that this should be done more carefully and with the most reliable medical sources. -A1candidate 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like that's all we need to hear about your "neutrality" on the aforementioned subjects, Kww. In my humble opinion, that places your suitability to edit these topic areas under a question as well. I have told you numerous times to WP:STICKTOSOURCES and leave your personal opinions aside, haven't I?

Last January you filed a report at ArbCom where you desperately tried to get banned all the editors disagreeing with you.[139] The report failed miserably. For example, Guerillero and Seraphimblade noticed that you are just "coming here instead of AE because you think that we are going to come up with the outcome you want."[140][141] Moreover, Thryduulf reminded that: "The existence of discretionary sanctions does not give anyone the right to ban anyone else from a topic area because they do not like them or anything else a specious as that. Uninvolved administrators will quickly WP:BOOMERANG any attempts to misuse the sanctions in this manner."[142] Are you going to choose that road again? Only time will tell...

"I firmly believe that if we forcibly expelled every editor that spoke in favor of acupuncture, chiropractic, Ayurveda, and similar forms of false medical treatment we could make more progress faster."[143] Honestly, I think your ideas on "how to improve the project" are worthless. The project will do just fine as long as we have competent editors who can remain NPOV and stick to the rules and guidelines. Meanwhile, I do expect you to do the same and abstain from making personal attacks or other ungrounded claims. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My efforts to prevent editors that damage medical articles from doing so don't qualify as "specious", Jayaguru-Shishya. You misunderstand precisely what a neutral treatment of a scientific or medical topic is: it doesn't place the perspective that magic works as being valid.—Kww(talk) 13:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ringleader Exposed!

The ringleader of the allopathy-promo attacks on Wikipedia has been exposed to be Kww today!!! --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Grow up. [144] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Help in resolving an edit war please?

Hello, I come to you to ask for your help in resolving an edit war I and another user have entered. On Nicki Minaj's discography page, I removed an entry from the singles section (Feeling Myself) to be exact, and moved it to the "Other charted songs" section. I did this due to the song initially being announced as a single in December, right after it's parent albums release, but then being cancelled in favor of the popular Truffle Butter which was then released in January as the next single from the album. However, another user disagreed with me, backing up their revert of my edit with the fact that the song had been uploaded to Minaj's youtube channel with other selected songs. We then started an edit war with my argument being that other non-singles had been uploaded to the channel, and their argument being that "it belonged there" and the "radio release was pushed back" (Which they failed to source) Could you possibly help in deciding a definitive place for the song and settle our dispute?

Many thanks, Azealia911 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Azealia911, Annvarie, I'm afraid that I'm far from a Nicki Minaj expert myself: I do my best to avoid listening to most modern artists. That said, the thing to do is to start a discussion at Talk:Nicki Minaj discography and put a note on Talk:Nicki Minaj asking for people to participate. Once everyone has agreed, both of you need to respect whatever people decide.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sort it out, but it seems it has already sorted itself out and the user reverted their edit. Case closed I guess. Thankyou though! Azealia911 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Block Request

Hello, I've been having some trouble with a user. On the page Chanel West Coast a user edited in that the subject visits her sister named "Lexie Hughes" a lot, I reverted the edit and asked it to be sourced, they then kept silently editing in these fabrications (I'm yet to find truth in these after extensive internet searches). After I left a message on their talk page stating that they may be reported, the user went quiet. Until a few minutes later, when another user, whose name was the apparent sister of the subject at hand, edited in the exact same info, with the same pattern of me reverting it, and them silently editing it back in. I have warned both user on their talk pages (supposed sock puppet of first user), which have both been ignored, can you see what you can do?

Thankyou very much, Azealia911 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Amaki7

Amaki7 (talk · contribs) has been changing sales figures for Shakira on her main article and the discography without providing a source despite repeated warnings not to do so. Erick (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Kww,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You wont pin him down to anything

At All do you know the idiom "Shifts goalposts"? I don't know if you are familiar with my english. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kww, please don't continue to press John on this matter. You have made your point; reiterating it further could be perceived as hounding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Next tactic? If you try to suggest that his little talk page close is premature, he'll delete your comment with the summary "closed is closed". -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Singlechart

I was wondering if you could comment on the last two sections of Template:Singlechart's talk page? Chihciboy (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I left a message for you on the talk page. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

MB

Hi Kevin, I just wanted to talk to you about MarkBernstein's block. I know you were only restoring the status quo from before Dreadstar's out-of-process unblock, but I hadn't thought it worth re-blocking Mark. It seemed unfair to use him as fodder in a dispute between two admins. I know I didn't note this anywhere that you might have seen it, so I'm not criticising your action at all, but I wonder if you'd consider unblocking (again), since the only reason he's blocked now is bureaucracy. He can of course be swiftly re-blocked and/or the topic ban re-imposed if necessary, but (much as I've been frustrated with Mark) blocking him to enforce a topic ban that was rescinded seems ... Kafkaesque. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Show me links that indicate that I wouldn't be doing the same thing as Dreadstar, HJ. I haven't been following this mess closely, and, as you said, the reblock was purely mechanical.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Dreadstar reversed my block without getting consensus and without waiting for me to get home, which is why he was desysopped. You would have nothing to fear since you would be acting with my consent. Frankly I wish Dreadstar hadn't rescinded the topic ban, but since he imposed it that was his prerogative and since the block was for a violation of that topic ban, which is no longer in place, I'm not sure there's a preventative purpose served by it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it was your block originally, HJ, feel free to drop it or modify it according to your own wishes. I won't interfere or object.—Kww(talk) 17:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, I need help in blocking a disruptive user who was warned not to carry on disruptive edits on Cheryl Cole discography.

They were warned after one of their edits were reverted, they continued to be disruptive. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheryl_Cole_discography&action=history

Thanks, Azealia911 (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Kww. You blocked 200.83.101.199 (talk · contribs) back in February. That person has returned as 200.83.178.121 (talk · contribs). I base that mostly on the fact that IPs geolocate to Santiago, the edit summaries in general and specifically the editing pattern by both IPs here. They have resumed edit warring but I will understand if you do not feel this is enough to act on. If you would let me know what other notice board you would like me to take it to that would be great. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they also edited from these IPs 186.9.133.145 (talk · contribs) and 186.9.135.42 (talk · contribs) back in March. There isn't anything to do with them. I only mention them to show the extent that this person is willing to go to in order to continue their editing pattern. MarnetteD|Talk 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, in the future, just let me know as soon as you spot the first suspicious edit.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have only just gotten back to WikiP and seen all of the work you did. Many thanks for your efforts and I will be sure to update you if that editor returns. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

200.83.101.199 (talk · contribs) has just returned as 186.9.132.229 (talk · contribs) MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do restore incorrect information to the encyclopaedia. Keep on deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. Keep on vandalising. Keep on violating core policies. I'm sure you feel really satisfied with every single falsehood reinserted into an article. 186.9.132.229 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

South Col

Hello. You have changed the visibility of a recent edit on the article South Col. I watchlist that page and I vaguely recall the edit in question. I believe it consisted merely the removal of the word "usually", if I'm thinking of the same edit. Whatever the change exactly, I don't recall even considering reverting it. May I ask what it was about that edit that prompted your action? I don't remember the edit summary. Was it something there? Just wondering. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I figured it out. RevDelete of a block-evading problematic user. Thanks for everything you do Kww. All the best. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

It appears that no one informed you of this. I NAC-closed it as the IP was evading a block, but if you want to respond, I've got no problem with your re-opening it. BMK (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The NAC has been reverted by another administrator. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to inform you about the re-opening of the thread. I'd appreciate if you could provide some insight. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 23:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you reopen it, Mike? Long-term abuser on whom simple RBI tactics have failed. Revision deletion is the logical next step, and, as BMK noted, he wasn't permitted to even open the report.—Kww(talk) 23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Iggy Azalea discography

Please deal with 109.91.227.189 disruptive editing on the article Iggy Azalea discography. The user was repeatedly warned and threatened with report and took no notice. --Azealia911 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This would appear to be a style issue, Azealia911. Take it to the talk page. If the IP refuses to cooperate after that, you will have an administrative issue on your hands for me to deal with.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will open a discussion on the talk page, thankyou for your quick reply! --Azealia911 (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible blocked editor

You had deleted many articles such as Jerry Bremner[145] and Chad Harden[146] in 2010. As per my routine I have only created their talk pages. Would you like to tell that who had created these articles at first? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It was Iluvrihanna24? Later renamed to THudson24.[147] I am only guessing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Azviz, using Inniverse as an account.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz, I would look for more behavioral evidence soon. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stubs

I've been creating more stubs than I have been in the past week since you complained actually. Right now it seems productive. But I will try to include a minimum of two sources if I can which I agree is better than one. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox technical request

Hi, Kww, and thank you again for closing out a consensus issue about Infobox Person in 2013. I've placed a technical request at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive221#Infobox technical request involving a follow-up to this, and while another admin asked for links before approving the request, it's been five days since I provided them and he evidently hasn't had a chance to respond either to that or to a "just touching base" note on his talk page. It seems like a small, routine thing, so I'm hoping perhaps I could ask you to take a look at it? Thank you very much for any help. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger De Haan

Could Roger De Haan come off semi protection? I'm not sure how it works, but it has been protected for almost four years now, without any significant changes. It was protected after a trial unrelated to vandalism. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Carey Mulligan awards

You redirected the awards page to her bio page but you forgot to remove the link to the awards page that's on the bio page. That's at least the second time you've done that. I also think it would be a good idea to put a message on the talk page of creator of that awards article, saying that they shouldn't start an article without sources -- though, I think by now she knows that. But, what I don't understand is: I had just added the sources template. You waited over a year - with it unsourced - and then after I tag it, that's when you close it. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Musdan77, I'm responding to filters that look for unsourced awards articles. Sometimes, you trip it when you add the tags. I don't monitor your edits in particular.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Copies of deleted articles

Hey KWW. I need copies of a few deleted articles, check your email. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not provide copies of articles created by banned users. No admin should. If you find one that will, let me know so I can consider attempting to get them desysopped.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's nice to know. I had asked for them, so that I could compare two versions. Would you do that for me? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the previous editions looked when banned users created them. Best to start from scratch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, although this issue is different. I have to compare the version that was created by a banned editor, with the version that has been created by an editor who share so many similarities with that banned editor and there are about 2 articles. Since Kww had blocked the socks of that banned editor and deleted those articles, I thought of giving a try. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review the versions myself and let you know what I think.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You checked then? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Jdogno5 and Michael Demiurgos

Hey, Kww. Since you indefinitely blocked Jdogno5 (talk · contribs), see this discussion in case you want to weigh in on it (whether it's to tell me to drop it or to state something else). Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all your maintenance of "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages by keeping out awards that are non-notable, unsourced, poorly sourced, or any combination of the three. I don't think you get enough credit for work like this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick jonas discography

i diddnt add jimbo.com i am trying to add reliable sources to the page. but that cant happen if you keep removing the page. and keep removing reliambl info and sources.

i cant adding the sources if you keep reverting everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.237.227 (talk • contribs)

IP, please remember to sign your edits with four tildes (the "~" symbol), and new threads should go at the bottom of the page. I fixed this myself, but it's something you should remember for the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger De Haan

KWW, Could Roger De Haan come off semi protection? I'm not sure how it works, but it has been protected for almost four years now, without any significant changes. It was protected after a trial unrelated to vandalism. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Look, I'm trying very hard to compromise and reach a consensus with everyone and QuackGuru is taking this opportunity to edit-war [148]. Are you going to do something about it? -A1candidate 22:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You added almost an entire article about veterinary acupuncture and in your revert you deleted a lot of text without explanation.[149]. There is a section for related practices. See Acupuncture#Related practices. You also added information about effectiveness to the lede that is redundant using lower-quality sources. The lede already says "An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews stated that acupuncture may alleviate certain kinds of pain.[23] A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain.[n 1][19]" QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Kww, please block Bluebluechicken, indefinitely I suggest. Over the past five months, they have been adding fake predictions to the outcomes of episodes for RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) Here are TWELVE examples ranging from January 1, to today: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Bluebluechicken has been warned about this vandalism a total of SIX times on their talk page. Thankyou, Azealia911 _talk 18:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Azealia911, please give me a few diffs that demonstrate that these were knowingly false. I'm not about to start researching a topic like this on my own time.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the long response time, a new episode of the show came out and I didn't want to find out spoilers, sorry! But yes, to the proof of the users false edits. In their first edit, made on January 20th, they added 14 weeks worth of results, when the first episode didn't air until march 2. All of the edits followed this trend of adding early results, the ninth edit listed adding future results for episodes 7,8,9 on April 5, when episode 7 didn't air until april 13 I could explain all edits, but they all follow the trend of the two I listed and I assume you get the gist Azealia911 _talk 15:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a little nudge, I'd really appreciate it if anything could be done, thanks Azealia911 _talk 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Careful...

Just letting you know that you hit 5RR on Acupuncture yesterday. [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that two successive days of trouble on the article had occurred less than 24 hours apart. Sorry about that, Adjwilley. Perhaps being dragged to Arbcom again will provide a way out of this. It's pretty clear that the advocates of these things won't stop based on the efforts of a few editors and ham-stringed admins.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators behaving inappropriately and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1candidate (talk • contribs)

A question. Does TM stand for Transcendental Meditation? If not, what does it stand for? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continuing abuse of revision delete by User:Kww. Thank you. (This is a procedural notice; personally, I smell a WP:BOOMERANG.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Singlechart

Hi Kww, there is an issue at the above template. It seems that the German charts archive has moved out from Officialcharts.de to some other website. That website has an id parameter associated in the url instead of the general artist and song criteria like the Hung Medien links. User:Synthwave.94 had attempted to correct it by adding the new url, however he/she is adding the {{{id}}} parameter, resulting in numerous articles using the template for officialcharts.de having invalid url, since well {{{id}}} was never used. Request your intervention in this matter since I'm not sure how to resolve this and manually we cannot go around adding ID parameter. I have reverted Synthwave.94's edits and kept the old url for now. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful that someone around here use one of these automated bots to solve the problem. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sick, travelling, and working all at the same time, which accounts for my limited bandwidth this week. I'll look at this this weekend.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Hey man, I just wanted to let you know I added a proposal to John's talk page as a compromise. Hope all is well. LesVegas (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Complementary and Alternative Medicine arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine -A1candidate 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

The LTA "best known for" guy has been ranting away using [155] and [156] - FYI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Now on an IPv6 address - [157]. I don't know much about these other than I don't believe they move around as much as IPv4s. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

iTunes charts in article prose

IP editors have reverted my removal of iTunes charts on Odd (Shinee album), and there was a discussion on my talk page here. Is my understanding of the guideline correct? I saw your name in several of the previous discussions on WT:CHARTS, so I thought I'd ask you. Random86 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you not understand that there are many OTHER Wikipedia pages that talk about the iTunes charts! (121.214.147.46 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

I believe you should fix all the other Wikipedia pages that talk about iTunes in the article prose. (121.214.147.46 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

I fixed a batch. Remember, though, one article having a problem is no excuse for purposely breaking other articles, as you seemed intent on doing.—Kww(talk) 04:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know they broke the rules, so I purposely did not go and intend to "break" other articles. (121.214.147.46 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

Well, what did you think people were saying when they pointed you at WP:SINGLEVENDOR, WP:SINGLENETWORK, and WP:BADCHARTS? How can you claim that you did not know they were against guidelines?—Kww(talk) 05:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When I said that I meant before any of that was pointed out! I would have stopped if there were no other Wikipedia articles that spoke about iTunes in the article prose. (121.214.147.46 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

It was pointed out to you here. After that edit, you said "the resolution had been accepted", pointing at a talk page where no one had agreed with you and I had pointed out the guideline. You twice reverted edits that included a pointer to WP:SINGLEVENDOR. It's quite obvious that you continued after you knew what the rules were.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I continued because there were many other Wikipedia pages at the time that talked about iTunes in the article prose. Didn't you read what I wrote before! (121.214.147.46 (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

After being told what the rules were, you continued to make one more article be bad instead of either leaving things alone or fixing those other articles. There's no excuse for that kind of misbehaviour, no matter how many times you write it. You knew what the rules were. You continued to purposely break them.—Kww(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Clinical practice guidelines

Thanks for going through those sources, by the way. I'd seen a couple of things I was concerned about when I checked them with regard to the section title, but I wasn't able to look at them in more detail. :-) Sunrise (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi Kww, the Arbitration Committee has reached a consensus to decline arbitration clarification request you were named in and so that request has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification request: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (May 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, -- Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Kww! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:03, Sunday, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Kww! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:03, Sunday, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Ayurveda RFC

On the one hand, I certainly will back out my close of the RFC, and will strike the !votes of the sockpuppets. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that it should be reclosed at this time based on the old RFC. I expect to be filing a request for general review at WP:AN; my own thinking is that a new RFC is probably in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've cancelled the close itself and backed out some of the socks and am still looking for the rest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Take a look at this interesting account. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• All over the place there are interesting edits like this. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I was planning to open a new RFC in place of the one that I closed and then cancelled, but I see that User:QuackGuru already opened one. He didn't add the bot tag to the RFC, so I inserted the bot tag in the proper place, which should register the RFC and get the bot to randomly publicize it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Second, you mention two "interesting accounts". I see no behavioral evidence that they are sock-puppets of OccultZone. Their interests do not appear to be South Asian. I am familiar with one of them, which may be a Single-Purpose Account. I am not familiar with the other one. If you have evidence that either of them is a paid single-purpose account, then I agree that action should be taken. I assume that you are not saying that they are sock-puppets of OccultZone. (If they are sock-puppets of another sock-master, that is a different question.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A blocked account said "Image was not fitting where it was added. [158] I had proposed those wordings there. Trans-scientific is sourced."[159]

Another account said " I am neutral as to whether the category is added to the page, but just like User:Robert McClenon below, I want to emphasize that the outcome of this RfC should not be used to add blanket statements of the form "Ayurveda is a pseudoscience" in the article lead or main body, since the actual situation is more subtle and complex. See my proposal from 7 months (!) back for details and sources."[160]

A blocked account links to [161]. See diff.

The other account links to proposal. See diff.

Did both accounts take credit for the exact same proposal? I must be confused. Can someone explain the diffs? I noticed User:DoRD is blocking a lot of the socks accounts. QuackGuru (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait...did you just suggest that Abecedare is a sock? From what I see, Abecedare made a proposal which was then discussed by them, two OccultZone sockpuppets, and a couple of other editors. Then, one of those socks linked the discussion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, QuackGuru, I too can't be sure what User:Noteswork is referring to when they say "I had proposed those wordings there." and link a section that I started. Perhaps they are talking about their comment at the bottom of the section Shall we consider writing that: "In the 21st century, multiple observers have also classified the concepts of Ayurveda as Proto science, pseudoscience and prescient."? Abecedare (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, Noteswork here does claim credit in the edit-summary ("putting my former proposed content") for content I wrote . Normally I wouldn't care, except for the sockpuppetry and the mess they made of the last sentence changing it from from the verbose but grammatical

"Some scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, even regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead."

to

"Since the 21st century, multiple observers have also classified the concepts of Ayurveda as proto-science, pseudoscience, and trans-scientific."

Based on these diffs, and the legitimate heightened suspicions, if anyone believes I am part of the racket, feel free to request an investigation/CU with my permission, most happily granted! You'll find a lrge topic overlap on India-Hinduism related pages; us on the opposite sides on pseudoscience and pseudohistory topics; and clear-cut CU data (no little brother hiding in my residence :) ). Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was confusing what in the world was happening at the talk page. What User:Noteswork wrote makes no sense because it was your proposal. What matters now is that the article is improved and things moves forward with the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Another user changing Shakira's sales and certifications

Juanfajardo1 (talk · contribs) has been making changes to Shakira's album sales and certifications without providing a reliable source despite repeated warnings not to do so on his talk page. Erick (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sock spotting

Good job spotting the Joseph Prasad sock in Deadpool100. I had spotted it as a duck on June 2, did an editor interaction analyzer, and came up with the same conclusion as you (especially after his comments at NeilN's talk page). Was going to file an SPI, decided to wait until I had more time on the weekend to collect evidence, etc. When preparing to get the report going, I saw you already blocked him for socking a few days ago. You saved me a lot of work! Cheers --- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting protection on Nicki Minaj discography

The Nicki Minaj discography article is constantly vandalized by non-users with false sales figures, etc. Can you please semi-protect the article for a while to help prevent these vandals. Annvarie (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI FYI

Because you re-blocked Joseph Prasad for socking a few days ago (block log here), I'm letting you know about this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Stay away from John. I can foresee your interactions eventually leading to trouble for you, so nip that in the bud and just stay away. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions for actually getting the problem fixed? He seems to stay just shy of actionable misbehaviour, but certainly makes it difficult for any progress to be made.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The best thing would be to have more uninvolved admins active. Unfortunately it's at the intersection of two topic areas that produce controversy (alt med and matters relating to the subcontinent). Most admins aren't going to be eager to dive right in to a situation like that. Sometimes you just have to accept that things are less than ideal and make the best of it you can, while being careful to keep your nose clean and letting any snide (but superficially civil) remarks simply pass. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Who on earth would be eager to dive into a cesspool, Boris? The problem we have isn't a really a lack of uninvolved admins, it's that John is involved in a way that's harder to put your finger on. There's no way that a constant line of editors like A1candidate, LesVegas, Jayaguru-Shishya, Bladesmulti,Delibzr, నిజానికి, VandVictory and AmritasyaPutra show up at your doorstep asking for help without each of them having the impression that you are sympathetic to your cause. At some point, if so many editors believes that a specific admin will rule in their favor, you have to think that there's a reason they all share that belief, even if it's just that they share my impression that he is sympathetic to pseudoscience advocacy. Then again, there is this anomaly: if one were supportive of A1candidate, how could you seriously point him at ANI as the appropriate place to take his complaints about DrChrissy's topic ban? I think that was the last bit of admin advice he received before being put on restrictions.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before I see no evidence that he is overtly sympathetic to alt med as such. Rather, it has more to do with interpersonal relations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I think what you are getting at is the issue of serial Randy enabling and whether or not an administrator is allowed to engage in it without consequence? At this point it has become abundantly clear that Bladesmulti et al. was operating in fantastically bad faith and that he was able to do so because of the aid of a certain administrator. I suggest to you that the issue of Randy enabling and whether it is a punishment free crime is something that should be raised more centrally.

While the issue of John’s behavior at Ayurveda has been raised before, perhaps it would be viewed differently in light of the recent findings by the Arbitration Committee. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhamamd

You are removing the tags which is a non-deliberate action and an issue with the virtual editor and my work? RussianDewey (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, RussianDewey, that's all that is happening here. It looks like three different people have now tried to clean up that minor wikitext error. The only change being made is to remove an unnecessary bit of wikitext. Nothing else has been changed—not a single letter, much less a single word. We all agree that the error was neither your intention nor your fault. Please stop reverting these small technical corrections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

Don't come to my talk page disrespecting me, show some respect and each article have a talk page go talk thee my words were directed at Nein not you, so there is no We. Do you have some Napoleonic syndrome or do you like wiling your small vested powers of blocking people and intimidating them. RussianDewey (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey, the issue was not about article content, it was about your behavior/errors (unintended or otherwise). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are kww? RussianDewey (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, but he still has every right to correct your uncivil behavior. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am. I suggest that you take a deep breath and calm down, RussianDewey. Three editors reverted your change and pointed out to you that you had accomplished nothing but adding useless markup to the page. I was simply making it clear what the consequences of continuing to do so were. It's not a topic for the article talk page, simply because you made no contribution to the article. If you would explain to anyone what you were attempting to do, perhaps someone could help.—Kww(talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"No, but he still has every right to correct your uncivil behavior."

My behavior was civil and I contacted Nein about it, I don't need Kww telling me how to do things, the issue was resolved, kww is just looking for more reasons to wield his uncontrollable power, by intimidating me in my sacred talk page, how is that not a violation considering there is a talk page for the disputed article.

"I am. I suggest that you take a deep breath and calm down"

I'm calm as a cucumber.

"Three editors reverted your change and pointed out to you that you had accomplished nothing but adding useless markup to the page"

And as I said the issue was resolved, by contact Nein, there was misunderstanding since I thought text were removed. Also just because three people were reverting against me doesn't mean I should back down for simple being outnumbered. I find it funny that you didn't bring the reasons when you were reverting to explain it to me, you usage of intimidating powers was interesting maybe compensating for something in real-life I don't know.

"I was simply making it clear what the consequences of continuing to do so were."

By disrespecting me in my talk page? You do realize how absurd you are talking right now

"It's not a topic for the article talk page, simply because you made no contribution to the article."

OHHH? you like playing like this huh? with the whole edit I have contributed to the Muhammad page is now equal to nothing???

"If you would explain to anyone what you were attempting to do, perhaps someone could help."

Nein has helped me, I don't need your petty help, I will warn you right now, not to disrespect me and talk to my talk page, you got issue son, send it to me before flapping your gums around.RussianDewey (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've blocked RussianDewey for an indef period. This discussion isn't the reason, but it did provide more evidence that he is unable to collaborate in a collegiate fashion, and he may or may not be able to in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis, I think the problems may run a little deeper. Take a look at Template:History of Iran and this diff, then tell me what you think.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree after seeing that. I suspected similar based on their first edits, just had no connection, so I kept it simple for the purpose of the block. Normally my threshold is a bit higher but it seemed obviously to be a bad hand account. If you think more action is needed, by all means, feel free to take the lead, no offense will be taken. I would bet sleepers exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• For some reason, he reminds me of User:Evlekis, but I wouldn't swear to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Please block the obvious sock Againt frustrated chauvinist slovak IP (talk · contribs). This account restored info added by the previous confirmed socks Invetorlist (talk · contribs) and Inventiorlist (talk · contribs). 213.229.69.40 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Royals

Wedding of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, and Sofia Hellqvist.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything about that that might interest me?—Kww(talk) 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

Can we include this South African Albums Chart published by Radio Sonder Grense/Recording Industry of South Africa, and South African Singles Top 100 published by MusicZA acceptable charts per WebCite like Entertainment Monitoring Africa's Airplay Chart please? I posted on the talk page of WP:CHARTS but no one has responded in 5 months. Please let me know. Thanks. - Lips ^{are movin} 10:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Best known for IP rangeblock

Hi. I rangeblocked 200.119.246.0/24 for 6 months due to continued block evasion for this user. I don't think there's any collateral, but could you just check it over to confirm this all above board and within policy? I can't see any objections given you already placed a rangeblock elsewhere and that was evaded. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, Ritchie333. I don't have any special visibility, though, so I can't see anything that you can't.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sidebar_proposal

Did you mean to oppose the proposal to add 4 days to make the CSD like a prod, or oppose the bot changes? Your comments seem more aimed at the original proposal than at the bot proposal. The way they did the sections is confusing and I put my comment in the wrong section at first as well. Gigs (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

Your recent editing history at List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Instead of removing it, why not spend two seconds adding the refs you demand? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww, it appears to me that The Rambling Man is actually in the process of adding references to this article. I suggest that you step away for at least a day or two to allow him time to do so.

More broadly, as I have mentioned before, while ideally all encyclopedic content would be referenced, I would certainly think a higher priority for removal would be material whose accuracy is actually questionable or subject to challenge.

And more broadly still, this entire situation is ironic, because I know from my own experience that The Rambling Man is himself a strong proponent of good referencing, even in situations where I myself did not think it urgent.

I hope this helps in some fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't, Newyorkbrad. The Rambling Man has been edit warring, including information that has no sources, and generally being insulting. His process of "adding references" appears to be finding a broad source that covers 50 or 60 percent of his additions and then stopping until I clean it up. There's no reason at all for him to add material before he finds the citations.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)