User talk:Mufka/Archive 6

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

Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7

Removed your PROD of Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed

Hi Mufka, you seem to be a meticulous editor, so I'm sorry I had to remove your PROD of this somewhat weird article. Your reason is very, very short. I'm unable to establish notability myself, but deletion of a historic person ((i'm not really sure if it's a hoax) should at least go through an AfD. The PROD is for uncontroversial deletions, an AfD will ensure more scrutiny Power.corrupts (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I had speedied several similar other articles by the author, but this one had the claim of "Khwaja Najamuddin Ahmed was a very famous saint of his time". I figured speedy would be shot down right away. I'll AfD it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To administrators of Wikipedia

These articles are for the purpose of better understanding of the spread of Islam over the ages.If any one of them is deleted , it becomes very difficult for the reader to understand the rest.The people who have been described in these articles, are the corner stones of Islamic progression from one area to another But most of the literature about them is limited to the sub-continent,and is written by local authors.It is very difficult to find international books,particularly about the lesser known individuals(which in my opinion is no excuse to stop further research into a better understanding of their role in spread of Islam) Therefore, the books that have been used as references for these articles are mainly local books but complete information is provided about them in said articles.

It is difficult for a western author to understand asian culture,neither are there books availible in English about every aspect of it.Here a new language is spoken every 100 kilometers and it is not possible to find english translation of books in all these languages.Opinion about articles by asian authors should not be only taken from american or european authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqsoodshah01 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said I would...

I don't know if you know yet (maybe?) but I was convicted of sock puppetry and found guilty after I admitted it about this whole January 14/15/17 edit war. I'm actually here to both thank-you and apologize for you putting up with this. I was unblocked after a lengthy discussion and I will no longer be vandalizing any pages.. but contributing good edits to the Wikipedia and I invite you to monitor my contributions.

Sorry and Thankyou!

--SamB135 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help me please and thanks for the message

I need to know how to align things. I also need to know how to cite work. If you could leave me a couple of messages regarding this then thanks!

Bb515200000001 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletions

Mufka: I am having trouble understanding the basis for your sweeping deletions of of my article on Craig Mullaney. On some of the language that comes from his website, I see that it is under copyright to him - so, with his permission, it could be posted, yes? Even so, there were a number sections that were not taken from the website and were independently cited. E.g., the paragraph about his marriage. These too you deleted. If your concern is (legitimately) with copyrighted material, I ask that you only delete that. If you have a legitimate basis for deleting other material, please make me aware of it.

Lippmanlee (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that I removed some text that was not copied, but since copyright infringement is a serious issue, it was better to be safe than sorry in removing the content. Removing only the copied sentences would have left the article with a lot of incomplete thoughts. You may obtain permission from the author to use the copyrighted material but you must follow the rules at WP:PERMISSION. It is always better to rewrite things in your own words so obtaining permission is not necessary. There isn't much value in having exact copies of other web sites here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, both here and on my page. I take it from fact that the rewritten and cited text that is currently on the article for Craig Mullaney that it meets the (minimum) standards? One question I do have is about stubs. You had added that the article is an author stub. Now that I have added additional cited information drawn from external sources, does this make it no longer stub? If not, what needs to happen to it to make it no longer a stub? I read the Wikipedia:Stub page but couldn't quite ascertain where the line is drawn. Lippmanlee (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As you have seen, there is no clear policy on identifying what is and is not a stub. I would consider the article to still be a stub because it consists of not much more than a few sentences of general information about the subject. I would generally consider removing a stub tag from an article when the article has been developed into several sections that illustrate significant areas of the subject's notability. Usually the sections would be something like intro, early life, career, accomplishments/awards, etc. The stub tag is not a bad thing and it does not indicate a poorly written article, it just indicates an article that needs more attention. Have a look at WP:BIOG. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted my page

I didn't get 3 minutes to edit my page fully and you removed it!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshinWinnipeg (talkcontribs) 02:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to try to contribute constructively, have a look at WP:FIRST. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fowler

Correct I do not know how AFD works that is because I do not have problems with pages. I will put it like this enjoy the page buddy all yours have fun I wash my hands of it I have to much to do then to worry about bickering over what people think. Thank You no need to worry about me as far as I am concerned Stephen Fowler does not exist. Reallmmablogger (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this is not an uncommon ending to your discussions. If you change your mind and you'd like some help making your way around, let me know. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer pal but like I said he is all yours enjoy have a good day.Reallmmablogger (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Build wiki page

Thank you for your message re:Build wiki page. However, I did not create this page. It was created by Bamsy1105 talk at 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC). I simply moved the text to Reston Public Library. -- Marek.69 talk 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very odd. Looks like another bug in Twinkle. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag Happy

I feel you are being a bit tag happy adding a Speedy tag to Toddington Services, please research the subject before being so quick to add tags to articles. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Seems like it has been deleted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I was confused by the typo above. We can discuss it on that article's talk page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I misspelled the wikilink.. so shoot me! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was admitting my mistake. Hopefully you don't take it as a poke at you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of it's own page because although 17 dose not apear much in the game he is still an integral part of the game and the story of 47 so If he is to be redirected it should be to the Hitman 47 page I will do that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AK-196 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


If you disagree with the creator of an article passes WP:WEB, you discuss this with the editor, not just move it to AFD straight away, doing this just creates extra work for everyone.--Otterathome (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What you suggest is not the standard practice. AfD is there for the community to make a decision on the notability of a topic. It helps to remove the possible bias that the author and the editor who nominates it bring to the discussion. Notability does not need to be proven to me. It must be proven to the community. Our individual discussion would not satisfy this important criteria. A successful AfD gives the article credibility and establishes that consensus exists that the topic is notable. This helps the article to remain free from challenge in the future. You should always welcome the opportunity to make an argument at AfD. In the long run, it makes for a stronger article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my talk archives

Thanks for geting rid of that old arcive. I just started Archiving my talk pages and well I got two down but that one I must have put the wrong title. Thanks for fixing that.--Darkness2light (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

There is no consensus whatsoever for spamming wikipedia with the orphan tag, as a quick perusal of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage‎ and {{orphan}} will show. Further, is it a matter of judgement as to whether a page has such a tag. My judgement is that the orphan tag is useless and spam; I'm very well within my rights to delete it from a page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the tag is counterproductive and it will prevent the article from being improved. By removing it you are saying that you don't want the article to be improved. Your rationale that there is no consensus for placing the orphan tag is not supported by the fact that the tag is very widely used and that there is an approved bot for placing the tag. Removing the tags is a waste of your time because they will simply be replaced, in time, by a bot. If you feel that the tag is useless and spam, please take it to WP:TFD. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel we may be wasting our time here. I have reported the user as appropriate, its now in the hands of the administrators. I cannot revert any more without engaging in an edit war, which I am not willing to do. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ann Moore (inventor)

I am taking a shot at wikifying the Ann Moore (inventor) article. Yup, definitely deserves an article. I left an underconstruction tag on the article as it is a bit late in the night my time for me to do the necessary rewrite. Good save. Sometimes articles like that are worth a second look all right. Take a look at the first version of Cyril_P._Callister :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that article sparked me to create Ann S. Moore too. I'll create a dab page tomorrow. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Recently, we had a discussion.

There are alot of Super People on the Internet, and there's alot of Lex Luthors. We've both been here (on the Internet) long enough to know that. We both know that the bulk of Internet users fit somewhere in between. I aspire to be the former. You are anything but the latter.

Please don't hesitate to interject your opinion, your thoughts or any questions, or even revert when you think I'm wrong. I told Kingturtle, and now you...two heads are better than one, three heads are better than to, four heads are better than three, etc.

I respect your opinion more now than when we talked. In retrospect, according to DOY guidelines (which I've read over again multiple times) and common sense understanding of new edits receiving more focus than ancient ones, if I was more seasoned I would have reasoned things to myself, shrugged my shoulders (or slapped myself upside the head) and moved on to the next task...after thanking you for calling my attention to my being outside or stretching the guide lines.

Please don't feel there is any anymosity on my part. I hope there is none on yours. --Kentholke (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've decided to be a member of WP:DAYS. It is a small but important project and every member can make a significant contribution. Your good attitude will serve you well here. Two things that should make it easier for you to become comfortable and confident in your editing are WP:AGF and WP:BOLD. Most seasoned editors understand these two guidelines and regularly practice what the guidelines preach. Sometimes new editors don't realize that their opinion has as much weight as anyone else's. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. Feel free to ask me questions if you get stumped. I don't know everything, but I'm here to help. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Move of archive

Hi, you moved an archived discussion from the talk page of English folk music. This was meant to be the archive of out of date talk for that article, so that if could be consulted by anyone who was interested, even if it is now mostly mostly irelevant. I may have got this wrong as this is the first time I tried it, but I did follow the instructions as best I could. If you know what I should have done, or can point me to the write page I would appreciate it.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PS thanks for sorting it while I was typing. Much appreciated.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense now - should get it right next time - thanks--Sabrebd (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Eric Tangradi article

Mufka - I just went through the articles for the 2008 NHL Entry Draft and the 2007 NHL Entry Draft. There are numerous prospects who have articles in Wikipedia who have yet to play an NHL game. They play in junior leagues such as the Ontario Hockey League, and don't have many achievements to this point. Most of them aren't as notorious as Eric Tangradi. I left you a message in the discussion page, but you should realize that being drafted in the first 2 rounds of the NHL draft merits having an article included in Wikipedia. It's a major accomplishment. There must be hundreds if not thousands of articles of NHL prospects that don't meet the requirements of WP:ATH but they are often read, discussed and edited. I'm sure that's also the case for prospects of other sports leagues. Ivand67 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, the article has been deleted for a third time. This indicates that community consensus does not agree with your claim of notability. Consensus has followed the guideline set forth at WP:ATH, as it should. As I said in response to your message on the article's talk page, it doesn't matter if other articles exist. Each article must meet notability requirements on its own merit. Those other articles that don't meet WP:ATH are good candidates for deletion as well. If you have a dispute with WP:ATH, you should make your case on its talk page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wild Mercury Sound

Please may I request a copy of The Wild Mercury Sound page. Emailed to: Cotty21 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article and placed in a user subpage. ... discospinster talk 16:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wild Mercury Sound band is widly regarded as a prominent teen band NME. Is there anything that would help assert them? Cotty21 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several ways for a band to be considered notable. Read the requirements at WP:BAND and then come back if you have any questions about interpreting those rules. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Merged article

Could you possibly tell me how to include the information you deleted when you merged the article for Martin Rubeo with the Gramsci Melodic article? That information appears to be lost, and I would rather not have to type it all in with the supplied references. Abtmcm (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are very rarely lost here. The direct way for you to see the content is here. Then you can just click edit and copy what you want. There are at least two other ways that you can get to such content in the future: First, if you were to click Martin Rubeo, you'll see that you end up at the band article. Under the band name at the top, you'll see "Redirected from Martin Rubeo". If you click that link, you'll get to the redirect page. From there, you can click the history and pick a version you want to view. The second way, if you've edited the page before, is from your contrib history. You can just click hist from your history. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mufka. Good luck with your admin nomination!Abtmcm (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Q15 at RfA

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that it is usually not allowed for an administrator to decline unblock requests for blocks that they themselves have made. I believe that the correct answer in that case would have been "let another admin handle it." But, that is just my advice; please do ask around on this issue; I don't want to give you bad advice. Think about reading up on that subject when your RfA passes though. Good luck! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've found three sources that discuss the topic and I'll review them carefully and look for more. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of article categories on user pages

Thank you for you reply to my helpme message and informational note regarding the proper use of helpme. Is the use of

Category:Articles containing Korean language text
Category:Articles containing Chinese language text

considered acceptable in User name space? My understanding was that article categories were not to be used on pages found in the "User" or :User talk" name spaces. Dbiel (Talk) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that those categories are meant to be content categories, not user categories. I think the issue is with the {{Wikipedia Embassy link}} template. Maybe that template can be altered to take it out of the categories. I don't think the cat is necessary for the template. I'll leave a message on the template talk page to see if anyone has any thoughts on it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. In checking the {{Wikipedia Embassy link}} template, it does not appear to be used on any article pages so the use of the {{lang}} template within the {{Wikipedia Embassy link}} template seems to serve no useful purpose at all. Since there was no reply to your post there, I went ahead and deleted the use of the {{lang}} template thereby removing all of the user pages from the article categories. Thank you for your insight into this issue. Dbiel (Talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

I am not vandalizing. My addition to the March 2009 page does no harm nor does it contribute. Furthermore, how will my recent edits cause me to be blocked? (Flouran (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

You are now an admin

Congratulations! I have closed your RFA as successful. A consensus has been formed by the community that you are trustworthy enough to receive the tools. Remember to keep the concerns voiced in your RFA in mind as you go about getting a grasp on the tools. Remember to ignore the rules when you need to, and to stay calm at all times. You can test out your tools at New Admin School. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or any other administrator. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! -- Rick Block (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Well done! --GedUK  22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Though I did not have a chance to change my !vote, after you answered my question, I expect you'll do fine. DGG (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I submit a collective thank you to all those who supported and to all those who provided constructive criticism. While support feels better, criticism is quite helpful. Thanks again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of Curiosity

Hey, I just posted an article about a company based in Montreal called Cigcola, I had just whipped together something quick while I was trying to get more information and resources to back up what I was saying when the article was deleted. I know I forgot to sign the article and that i had posted a wrong link, but I was just wondering if i could get a copy back of what was deleted, so i know how better to revise my next entry to ensure it meets your standards. (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the crux of the article that you whipped together was much the same as one that was created and deleted 7 months ago, I don't think I'd be doing you or the project any favors by sending you the text of the article. If you are sincere about creating content, it'd be best for you to start over from scratch. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for nuking my subpage so quickly. And, while I’m here, I see congratulations are in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiosis (band)

Re. speedy on Semiosis (band)

Could you tell me the creating user, please?

Only I helped them out on IRC; they were asking how to set up a redirect, so I specifically asked them to read WP:BAND before creating it; they said they had, and that it met the critera, so I helped them to create a disambig page for Semiosis (They couldn't move, as they were new).

When it was CSD'd I put a hangon, and searched the web, then agreed it wasn't notable.

I'd like to leave the user a suitable message about notability.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My Page

Yeah i was just testing it out ill take those off Thanks Permethius (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also how do I get the u t c behind my name like that? Peace Out——Permethius(u)(t)(c) (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkout WP:SIG for all sorts of things about customizing your signature. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for deleting it so quickly :) cf38talk 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sgt Peppers

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but doesn't this qualify under Significant works of art? speednat (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose that is a completely invalid argument. But I think that most albums would fail that criteria and the general inclusion criteria because they have little long term global impact. Album releases have been excluded from the beginning for just that reason. Of course, the term "major work of art" is subjective. The general spirit and practice that has excluded music albums is the supposition that it would be impossible to decide which albums are notable enough for inclusion and which are not and that their historical significance is pretty limited. Books, movies, and video games could be considered works of art, but they have never been allowed except in very rare circumstances. Music really falls under that same category. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

my deleted page

Hi, I was trying to create a page for my jug band "The Fabulous swing Plumbers" last night, by putting a humorous description up first. I checked this morning and its gone, are we not allowed to create entries for currently playing bands? Thanks Thimble Flynn —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Before trying to create an article about a band, please have a look at WP:BAND to see if the band meets the notability requirements. With that said, you shouldn't create an article about your own band because that would be a conflict of interest. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit. Kentholke (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet. We won't see what the index looks like until the bot runs tonight. It could be a mess. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Page deletion explanation

You deleted a page I submitted with the following comment 'Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Hannah Hobley, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies.' Can you please explain why you would consider this page to be inappropriate as I felt that the references that I have given to secondary sources more than proved the notability of the subject. If you feel unable to revert the deletion, pehaps you could advise me how to either improve the article or refer me to the process on how to make a reversion appeal Thanks Fspinner (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You have recreated the article several times and it has been determined by a previous deletion discussion that the subject does not meet the notability requirements necessary for inclusion. The discussion can be found here. Your new recreation of the article has not contributed any new information that was not evaluated in the deletion discussion and therefore there appears to be no new evidence that the subject meets notability requirements. If you feel strongly that the subject is notable, I'd suggest that you create the page in your user space at User:Fspinner/Hannah Hobley and build the article there. Once you have what you feel is an article that establishes the person's notability, use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page to get input from other editors. Be sure to read and understand WP:N and the specific subset WP:ENTERTAINER as that policy is the one that applies to actors. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You noted that 'Your new recreation of the article has not contributed any new information that was not evaluated in the deletion discussion and therefore there appears to be no new evidence that the subject meets notability requirements.' Actually I did provide new information when recreating the article that I would suggest confirms notability based on secondary sources, examples being references on the BBC website of an interview given by the actress on BBC Radio One on one of the biggest radio shows in the UK, an article on the British Comedy Guide website, article in the Daily Telegraph (national newspaper) and and article on Masterpiece Classic website where the actress is listed for a British TV show that is broadcast in the USA. She plays a lead character in a hugely successfull British TV comedy and if you look at previous comments for deletion it has been noted that she shouldn't have been AFD'd in the first place as there is multiple evidence of notability. Fspinner (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent version is almost identical to the ones that were previously deleted. As for your external links, I'll point out why each one doesn't establish notability. This one just says that she appeared on some radio show. This just lists two roles, one minor. This one is basically a press release about the show. This one is just a blurb about the character she plays and says nothing about her. This one is just a TV listing. This one is just a cast list. The only thing that is different from the version that was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion is that there are different bad references. If you can find some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that establish notability, then she might meet the requirements for an article. Use your test page to take as long as you need to see if you can add some more information about her with sources. Continue using the helpme template to get feedback. This is the best solution. Someone might come along and say "of course she's notable and here's why". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some old pages

Hi. I was looking at some old pages (look like maybe a proposal) that you created. I'm trying to determine if there is any reason to keep the pages. The reason I noticed them was because they transclude the current date page (e.g. March 15) and end up showing up in the Category:Days of the year. The pages are Template:Lotd scroll, Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (TFL), and Wikipedia:Today's featured list proposal. I was going to send them to WP:MfD but I wanted to ask first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be deleted. Proposals are archived, kept for reference and historical reasons. The template and the Main page alternative are live, part of the collection at WP:MPA. There was an error in the template, but I've fixed it, so all 3 pages display correctly now. Thank you for pointing this out to me. The Transhumanist    19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Marlon Brando

Mufka, you may be right here, the anon had a MO that looked like a banned editor at work. I think I was too rash to treat the issue as vandalism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

I've spent some time reviewing the article history, and I see that there is some activity that indicates a similarity. My antennae were up too once I started reviewing it. Hard to know for sure. From what I can see, the edits are not totally dissimilar, but they don't seem as blatant and unsourced. It could be a different editor. I'd be interested in following it if you find some more connections. But either way, it wouldn't do much good to block the IP if he's just hopping around. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting (quoting Maxwell Smart...) and I guess if it is a case of WP:DUCK then I wasn't far off. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC).