The sock and spa templates are fully justified and needed, and your removal of them was not. As the archives show, this page has been the target of spa and sock accounts for a long time. This latest account was solely created to make a vote in a requested move discussion, which is what the disputevote template was created for in the first place. As if that quacking wasn't enough, the account launched immediately into a series of repetitive discussion threads, repeatedly raising he same contentious points as the spa's found in the archives, all the while using smilies and coded language indicating who they were. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on these cues, but it's really best if you don't interfere again. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the archives, it appears you were fully aware of the situation as early as 18 May of this year. At that time, you wrote:

Speaking as an individual, I would be *most extremely grateful* if IP/Anonymous editors would consider creating a named account, and use it to post here. I don't intend the least personal imputation to any current contributor, but regular readers and contributors to this article have spent absolutely HUGE amounts of time in the past six to twelve months dealing with unscrupulous users who've employed IP/Anon accounts to "tag-team" and "sock-puppet" this article, to sway it to their own particular point of view. It's just so much easier to have confidence in an editor or discussion contributor if he or she is editing from a named-account. It's not required at all by Wikipedia, but I would offer my *very* sincere gratitude if you anon/IP posters would honor this request and adhere to it every time you contribute here.

Knowing all of that, and seeing that the account was created solely to vote in a move discussion and to bring up old discussion points from the archives in a blatant manner, I'm wondering about why you removed the warning tags. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that you didn't like this, but I hope I'm not quite so naive as I was last bout. I admit I felt quite foolish, after the SPI results were in, for having been a dupe, for having assumed too much good faith, and that I regretted that the unpleasantness between us on my talk page prevented me from recognizing the discreet hints you were trying to give me. They were obvious enough, in retrospect, for all love.

I'll even take "it's really best if you don't interfere again" as more of the same - as trying to look out for me - and will thank you for that, despite your edit-summary threat to "file a report". ( Nooooooo!! Pleeeeeze! Anything but a report! ... You do like to "come out swinging", don't you? ) Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the newness of the account, the use of emoticons, the particular use of language, and especially the dislike for the lead placement of your beloved tincture photo don't seem definitive to me, nor even particularly convincing.

Especially that last one: Sorry to have to say so, but I'm not sure anyone likes that photo where it is. My impression is that most users find it at least a little jarring there. ( I'm actually more troubled by the non-response to your request for disclosure of other accounts, personally. ) Am I missing anything, any other cues, as you call them? Not sure what you meant by "coded language", for example. Is it delivered through the radio announcer? ;-) But maybe I'm being dense.

In any case, the technical and subjective evidence suggests to me that your old friend hasn't gone away, nor relocated away from the mid-west United States, and that if your new friend is quacking, he's doing it from California. Unless there's something else you're not telling me, i.e. unless I'm missing something big, I think it's possible that I might have more hard evidence as to who's who and where they are than you do at this point. I'm weighing what to do with that right now, actually. I hate socking. Let me know if you'd be open to an e-mail. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this spirited reply and I'm glad you see the cosmic joke in all this. My only other concern is that you unintentionally cluttered up the move discussion with multiple replies, comments, and a vote, instead of just posting one vote with comments. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect phrase, your "cosmic joke". If I didn't allow myself to descend to a thoroughly childish and gleeful appreciation of it, and of my own absurdity, too, from time to time, I'd go mad, without a doubt. Good point, too, re clutter. I'll refactor a bit to try to reduce that: comments welcome, or just revert and discuss if you prefer. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, are you still in Ohio? Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( A point of order re the following: Please don't reply inline, i.e. within the flow of my text. Use blockquotes below my signature if you need to refer to a context to be clear. No one should have to study timestamps to recreate the serial/temporal order of a thread, imo. Far too confusing. Thanks. )

That question strikes me as really funny! Are you wondering now whether I might be your old nemesis, one of her multitude of socks, or even your new pal Michael? It's at least plausible, and I can understand how you might be having a Rod Serling moment right about now, given all the socks you've interacted with in the past year or more. But, no, I've never been to Ohio, I'm nowhere near a "certain sock" ( you do know how to do a reverse IP lookup, I'm sure, and a traceroute? ), and I'm nowhere near Michael, either. ( You're familiar with whois, area code lookups, and related tools, no doubt? ) I'm afraid I'm too lazy to be the Professor Moriarty of sockpuppetry - it would make my brain tired.

Btw, I hope you followed and investigated the link Michael has on his user page before you started biting? I hope you investigated at least that before you gave him the lie? I'm actually a little concerned for you in this, as you were for me last bout with that "certain sock". I know you don't want me to interfere, as you put it, and I don't want to waste my time or yours if there's something you're not telling me, either. And while Michael's initial apparent dismissal of your question about other accounts was disturbing to me, he has answered now, and I'm not seeing any evidence that he's your Professor Moriarty either ... Frankly from where I'm sitting with the information I have, your assumption of bad faith on Michael's part is looking more and more like a train wreck with each of your succeeding edits. You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that I can't really stand by indefinitely while you continue to gnaw on someone I have reason to believe is a newcomer, and on-the-level, based on tools like reverse IP lookups, traceroute data, whois, and other sleuthing. You've been around here much longer than I have, though, so do e-mail me, please, if there's something I'm missing about this that you don't want to disclose in public.

My username isn't geographically identifying at all: it has a very different and idiosyncratic origin that I'm not willing to share with a stranger online. In fact, I share almost nothing online about my RL; sorry about that. But next time we get around to an SPI - see Alfie66's talk page - I'd be perfectly happy to have a checkuser run against my account name. I'll also state for the record that apart from two or three accidental logouts when I was a complete beginner here, I've never edited from an IP, and I've never created or used another account, either. But perhaps I'm out, and read too much into your question?

... Oh, what the heck: network tools show that your "certain sock" hails from Nebraska, and I've never been there, either. Network tools can be fooled to an extent, but ... well, that's enough, more than enough, to say here. I was obtuse last time out, but unless I'm being a complete idiot here, and there's some evidence for your suspicion that you've withheld from me, then the boot appears to be on the other foot this time... Not that you're without good company in that "obtuse" thing. :-) And I still could be wrong, I'll admit. If I am, then you'll have my apology, but at least I'll have been wrong after making a reasonable effort to review the evidence before opening my mouth this time out, and that's something, anyway.

You'll see that I chose to honor your "clutter" observation, and have refactored my MC/talkpage "Move Request" section posts to mitigate that clutter. I'd like you to return a similar favor, please. I think you'd do well to claim public ownership of your unsigned, undated, official-looking top-post that I reverted and you reinstated, and move it ... oh, it's easier to do it myself than explain what I'd like you to do. I'll go ahead and refactor it also: revert if you must, and we'll see if we can work it out. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The only reason I asked if you were still in Ohio was because of your user name, and if you were or had been, I was going to bring up the subject of the Skyline Chili article, which has not improved very much over the years, even though it has attracted quite a few editors, similar to the problem we are facing in the medical cannabis article. You apparently took this question in a manner other than how it was intended. Might be best to accept things as face value rather than reading things into it that aren't there in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes a new user is just a new user. Might be best to accept things as face value rather than reading things into it that aren't there in the first place. Isn't this fun?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account was created to vote in a move discussion, and then went directly to making points taken from an older, archived discussion about the lead image involving socks and anons. New users don't do that. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( ← outdenting ) My understanding of your argument: (1) It's very unlikely anyone who wasn't a sockmaster would create an account to be able to participate in a !vote discussion on a talk page; (2) It's very unlikely that anyone who did so would also immediately suggest that the tincture photo as the lead image is far from the best we can do. ( Do I have it right? )

Well, I see your points, of course, and I agree this is unlikely. ( It becomes much less so if you admit that nearly everyone else who sees it thinks the tincture photo sticks out like a sore thumb as a lead, but we'll leave that to one side for now. ) When you add to these points that initial non-response/deletion of your "what other accounts have you used?" query, I'd say your interpretation becomes much more plausible, although not enough so to risk a false-positive, i.e. to risk giving the lie to a legitimate, good-faith new user.

But you believe, as I understand you, that your new friend and your old one (sko) are one and the same. In order to uphold that belief, I think you need a theory to accomodate the following facts that I don't see you've integrated into your argument so far: (3) Your new friend's resume, from his web site, seems to be well-supported by independent online sources. He does seem to be in the Bay Area for real, in other words; (4) Sko's checkuser-confirmed IP socks, and the additional ones she subsequently admitted to using all resolve/geolocate to an ISP in Omaha. (5) The new IP editors we've seen recently on the talk page also resolve/geolocate to Omaha. (6) Omaha is not the same place as the Bay Area. ... You see where I'm going with this? ;-)

Your new friend is in the Bay Area. Your old friend's edits were coming from Omaha. The majority of the single-purpose-account IP edits we've seen in the last eight weeks are also coming from Omaha. Omaha. Bay Area. Different places. So what's your theory? That your new friend used a proxy server located in Omaha all last year? And continues to do so, while also editing as his own real name? That's possible, certainly, but it strikes me as unlikely. And the alternative is worse: that the huge presence he has across the web as locating him in the Bay Area is just an elaborately implemented charade. I find it hard to believe any private person would go that far when there could be no direct financial motive for doing so. So the gist of my own argument is this: Yes, it might be unlikely that a truly new user would do what your new friend did, but alternative explanations are less likely still.

Even if you disagree with me - and I admit I could be mistaken - I hope I've at least given you reason to move off your apparent certainty with respect to your new friend. Is it really impossible you're wrong? Is there even, in your mind, a 10% chance you might be? If there is, then I think you need to either back way, way off or initiate an SPI that names him as a suspect.

As you'll know by now if you looked at Alfie66's talk page as I suggested you might, I've been gathering data for an SPI, although I'm not prepared to go forward with it just yet. Before I ring that bell I want a little more time to think about a possibly more lasting solution I'm considering. You'll be among the first to know when I've decided what I want to do with the data I've collected.

Oh, and thanks for thinking of me in connection with the Ohio Chili restaurant, or whatever it was. I do have a couple of articles I'd like to get to, of course. I want to learn a little more about pharmacology, first though, and also do my bit to help resolve the ongoing socking and collaboration problems at medical cannabis to the extent I can... When you've thought more about it, will you let me know how you hope to move forward yourself, in your current strife with Michael? I'd appreciate that. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several sock puppets involved on the medcan page; Sko was only one of them. There's no strife. I've asked Michael to put something together in his user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen his talk page. The last thing he told you was that he wouldn't continue to tolerate your insulting behavior, and that he intended to try to find someone here who could intervene. And you reply, "There's no strife." Perfect, just classic ...

I don't know whether he's a sockmaster or not, and neither do you. If you're right then perhaps your behavior won't end up mattering very much. If you're wrong then you've been biting a newcomer repeatedly, without any apparent effort to even investigate first. Whether you're right or I'm right, you simply cannot behave this way toward even possible newcomers on so thin a basis for suspicion. If you're not mistaken this time, you will be another. You simply cannot behave this way and expect other editors to be willing to collaborate with you. I'd hoped this discussion would help you see that, that talking it over might help you see the potential damage you might be in the process of causing. I'm very sorry to find that it hasn't. I have nothing more to say to you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another bizarre response: User:Michaellatulippe is not a "newcomer", and I can tell from your comments that you already know who he is and what accounts he used before, so you can stop with the charade. Sko has nothing to do with this, so stop intentionally confusing the issue. I'm not into "outing" people, so if he wants a "fresh start", that's fine, as long as he behaves, I won't say anything. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing that confused me. You wrote above,

"This latest account was solely created to make a vote in a requested move discussion, which is what the disputevote template was created for in the first place."

Huh? The "disputevote template"? All I see is plain text, italicized, plus a link to wp:sock. No template, and I can't find a "disputevote" or DisputedVote template elsewhere, either. No harm, no foul, but that's just you having your fun, right? Or is there such an animal lurking in some template library that I just haven't found yet?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The template can be found at {{DisputedVote}}. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling. One of the things I like about interactions with you is that I tend to learn things. ( Often in the same way the Dalai Lama meant when asked whether he resented the Chinese. I understand he replied, "Oh, no! They are my greatest teachers!" But learning is learning, and I'll take it where I find it! ;-) Somewhat more on-topic, old friend, your direction to the template allowed me to find this, too, among its related documentation,

As always, sound judgment is required when using this template and others such as {{sock}}. If at all in doubt, it is probably best not to use, lest we run afoul of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks, Satori Son 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just sayin'.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your biggest mistake is assuming that I don't already have evidence demonstrating that the user has two active accounts. I do have that evidence, and based on that sound judgment, my first inclination was to ask the user if they would be so kind as to reveal their other accounts. The question was never answered (or denied, it was merely blanked). Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been helping at the help desk for going on five years, and I think your response to my post was one of the nicest I've ever seen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess this means my dairy products will be okay for awhile? ;-) Thank you for taking time to post to my talk page, in addition to providing so clear and concise an explanation at the help desk. I appreciate the courtesy. I'm surprised to hear that my words of appreciation were at all unusual there. Perhaps new users assume that help desk volunteers are paid Wikipedia employees? Whatever the reason, it always surprises me to find that many users fail to recognize and acknowledge how much dedication and work from others their own ability to contribute actually rests on.

I often hear Wikipedians express pride about their high edit counts, the many articles they've created, & etc., and that's understandable. But I do wish it were more generally recognized that this wonderful place would necessarily implode of its own weight in the absence of so much behind-the-scenes generosity. And I wish more contributors here would follow your lead and help out in the vital infrastructure work that's required to keep things here running well. It seems to me that your own work here is exemplary in this way.

By "exemplary" I mean:

• You create compelling articles. ( I'd very much like to make the acquaintance of a few Goodfellow's Tree-kangaroos. I had no idea such a delightful animal existed. And your article about the film Anguish scared me all by itself, without even seeing the movie! )

• You help new users with an admirable patience and painstaking clarity, and

• You also work to keep the engines running smoothly behind the scenes in a score of underappreciated but crucial ways.

I've thought several times previously of saying some of this, but I hadn't interacted with you directly before, and it would have been too much of a liberty, coming from a complete stranger. But I'm very glad to have an appropriate opportunity to say so now. So thank you, again, for your extraordinary dedication to this remarkable enterprise, and for your very generous work to sustain and improve it so consistently and for so long. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you here and here. I have also written an essay titled On categorisation that may be of interest to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I had a funny feeling at least some reverts would occur. The mass categorization was partly in response to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture in present-day nations and states. I wanted to ensure all the agriculture articles were properly categorized before the list was deleted. I usually do check parent cats but after seeing several articles, particularly on Africa like Agriculture in Niger, I assumed both cats were common practice. The addition of Economy cats occured at the end of my actions. I should have double-checked and good on the user for reverting the changes. I will run through soon and check the others they may have missed.

I haven't read that particular book but do work on dams articles in the Columbia basin/river. Dams are pretty interesting and a lot of engineers see them as our way of "completing nature" by using a river and canyon nature provided to generate power, store water, etc. Even without dams, the concept of how a large portion of land drains into a river basin is awesome on a large scale. The Mississppi River for example drains all or part of 31 U.S. States. All in all, everything that the river effects and supports is amazing.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help. SharedIP templates are easy to add if you install the "Friendly" gadget. I love Twinkle, Friendly and refTools, they really make life here a lot easier. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened. When I went to submit my reply, I got an edit conflict thing, so I just re-typed what type and clicked "save". - Donald Duck (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]