This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on

---

Hi!
With your sorting of the sbl you deleted the entry "asiafanclub" (and did not delete "\basiafanclub\.com\b"). But actually the other way round would make more sense, wouldn't it? -- seth (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I fixed it yesterday. --Versageek 08:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

hello, I am not trying to do blatant advertising, just a history of my site. Is there a way to have it created without deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superseller256 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You should read our notability guidelines, in particular the one covering web content. I see someone has already left a welcome template on your talk page. It would be good to read some of the material linked from there as well. --Versageek 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CAN YOU PLESE TELL ME WHY YOU ARE DELETING MY PAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superseller256 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above. --Versageek 08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

hello, I am not trying to do blatant advertising, just a history of my site. Is there a way to have it created without deletion?

You need to read our notability guidelines, in particular the one covering web content. If your site meets those criteria, it may be possible to create a page for it. I would suggest starting the page in your user space. I see someone has already left a welcome template on your talk page. Please read some of this material before creating any more pages. --Versageek 08:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

VersaGeek,

I just read your comment regarding moving my first article, entitled "The WordWeaver", to my sandbox, due to a challenge/dispute from a Japanese user by the name of fg2, in which he questions the notability of the individual of which the article is about.

Considering that the article in question is about an American Christian evangelist and Christian writer, and that fg2 is more than likely Buddhist, and therefore may possibly have difficulty understanding the relevance of "The WordWeaver" article, as it pertains to American Christian culture, I must question whether or not he is truly qualified to challenge my article.

In visiting his user page, it is evident that he has done a lot of editing over the years, but his primary interest appears to be Japanese culture. I am just concerned that my article was unfairly moved from the public Wikipedia site, based on the opinion of one person -- fg2 -- who may not be fully qualified to make such a judgment. To be honest, I can't help but wonder if there might not be some religious bias involved in his decision to challenge my article about a Christian evangelist.

I responded to his comments on "The WordWeaver" talk page, but I am also wondering if he will even be able to read my response now, being as you moved the article to my sandbox. Can other editors access other users' sandboxes?

I would very much appreciate if we could get more editors involved in this discussion regarding "The WordWeaver" article, although I must say that I don't feel that I can add much more to the discussion other than what I have already stated in response to fg2.

My feelings at this time are that if a well-written and researched article can be removed from the public Wikipedia site based on the opinion of just one individual -- in this case, fg2 -- then I might as well hang it up now, because there will always be people who won't agree with an article. After all, as the Wikipedia guidelines clearly state, notability is very subjective, and is based on the presumption, or assumption, of each individual.

Thanks for listening.

The Webilicious Webwikator (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the subject page was deleted by you in a speedy deletion on 20 December 2008. Is there a way to access the page as it last appeared before it was deleted? I believe there is a way to write this page in a way that does not run afoul of WP:ADS, but I would like to see how it appeared that warranted a speedy deletion before I attempt to resurrect it. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (edited - forgot to sign with four tildes)

I've placed the old article, with it's entire history in your userspace at: User:Kuyabribri/Anaheim GardenWalk‎ --Versageek 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I can now see why this warranted speedy deletion, though I personally believe it could have been saved without deletion. Not your fault though. I will attempt to resurrect it to incorporate NPOV. I should note that there is another article called GardenWalk that appears to describe the same thing. Not much there, though. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added this interview that was presented on TV and it is relevant and should be available to others, because one thing is to read about it and other to watch and hear for yourself, but your bot REVERTED it!. Unless you are a Hillary supporter which makes you bias and a non trustful administrator, you should allow this video to be in Peter Paul's article. Please fix your bot! I will try to add the link one more time, Thanks

Hi! We invite you to the Hartford, Connecticut meetup, currently scheduled for January 24, as the previous meetup was lightly attended due to a snowstorm. You are being notified because your name is listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/Hartford/Invite list. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Versageek, this topic is highly controversial -- an AMA establishment refusing to recognize the "level" of care delivered by a Nurse Practitioner, "inferior" to that of a physician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDianeM (talk • contribs) 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to discuss the issue on the Article talk page and not remove stuff posted on the talk page by others.. If there is significant controversy, the article itself should mention the controversy. --Versageek 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But did those complaints arise at a time when the deletion summary used the word "notability", rather than the criterion tracking language "failure to indicate importance or significance"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The last one I saw was from after we had switched to "doesn't indicate importance or significance", but before the log line specified that it was The Article rather than the individual/subject of the article that was at issue. Dunno.. the language has always been pretty clear to me, but I guess if one happens to look themselves up on Wikipedia and finds a deletion log entry - one may see things differently. :) --Versageek 01:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I look myself up all the time; still no article;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I see you beat me to it with a block. Fast work! ;) Cheers, Basie (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Hi there. On January 7, 2009, you deleted Brian Maes per {{db-a7}}. Administrator thingg had already done so, then partially undeleted it on a request from me, as I believed that it did not meet the a7 standards, and he concurred. Could you please undelete that article? Thanks. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done.. --Versageek 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds kinda...jumped on it while I was writing that previous post. Sorry about that. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I've been adding some of the links regarding finance, and I'd like to dispute your characterization of the external links as inappropriate. Even though parts of our site are commercial, we believe that much of the free content is valuable to individuals interested in the concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.34 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It may well be useful content, however Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. We are an encyclopedia and we'd prefer you add content to our articles rather than just links to external websites. In addition - adding links to multiple articles is considered spamming. If you think the links are helpful, I suggest discussing it with the folks at WikiProject Finance or on the talk pages of individual articles. If other regular editors concur that it enhances our content, it can be readded. --Versageek 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will definitely bring it up for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.211.34 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Um I'm wondering why you deleted my page, the significance of it is that we are among the first 3,000 players to start in the game. We help others, and we want a page describing who we are. We changed it from "clan" to group. Tell us how we can fix this, so we can have a page on this site. The significance of the subject is we have created a group in a game which all new or experienced players can join, and we help them. We will also include our names and a biography of ourselves.

Hello Versageek. Please check the unblock request at User talk:Micky 1234567890123 to see if you want to lift this autoblock. It results from your action against Moto. EdJohnston (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at User talk:Micky 1234567890123's edit history, it seems he's attempting to be constructive. I'm willing to lift the autoblock on him in this case. Now that he knows he can end up blocked due to misbehavior on his IP, I certainly hope it won't happen again. :) --Versageek 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that appears sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hey! =) --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting the autoblock! I appreciate it! =) --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Micky 1234567890123's User Of The Month!

File:Angel GIF.gif Congratulations! You have been voted Micky 1234567890123's User Of The Month! Thanks!

Thanks for the nifty award Micky! --Versageek 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at what your bot have done. I had to revert the edit but I fear the bot will do it again. Removing MySpace links might be a legitimate task, but what the bot does is removing valuable information as well. I guess the same might be happening in other article. You should consider tweeking your bot. And when it comes to MySpace links, I know they are discouraged, but I never heard they are 100% forbidden! What we have here is an official MySpace. This is a legitamate link. And while The Bamboos (funk band) do have an official web-site, for many notable bands the only official web-site they have is their official MySpace. This makes a difference. Thanks, and please answer at my talk page (instead of this page). Netrat (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notably, in this particular case the last edit before your bot's edit was adding myspace link, and reverting this ONE edit was what the bot was expected to do. However, it reverted many edits at once, including valuable ones! It would be a misfeature if the previous edit would include both undesired link and valuable information, but in this particular situation the bot definitly malfunctions. The other problem is the fact that your bot doesn't include a link to a policy that would explain its actions to the edit summary - if such policy exists in the first place. The bot must be fixed ASAP, and someone has to verify its edits. Netrat (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot only reverts IPs and new users, who, more often than not - add these sort of links inappropriatly. We've found that if the bot only reverts a single edit in a string of multiple edits, it often leaves misformatted debris in the article. We do periodically analyse the bot's edits, especially when it comes to MySpace and YouTube. This Nov. 2008 analysis found that 80% of the MySpace links added in the sample set of 30 were inappropriate. If there were enough people to check every MySpace & YouTube link that was added to the site (or every XLinkBot edit), we wouldn't need to have a bot reverting the links. That said, it is probably time to do another analysis of the bot's record. An upcoming software enhancement to Mediawiki will give us some other less harsh technical options to consider for MySpace and YouTube link additions. --Versageek 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just block anons and new users from adding MySpace and YouTube links a'la spam list, but a spam list applied to anons and new users only? As you can see, reverting a series of edits it not always optimal. Netrat (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The feature I'm speaking of is: Wikipedia:Abuse_filter - it is quite sophisticated and we may be able to use it alone, or in conjunction with XLinkBot to find some solution that is less harsh. --Versageek 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed that you authorized the speedy deletion of my article "List of people who have used cannabis" yesterday.

I realize that it's a controversial subject, but--like I mentioned in my rebuttal on the talk page of the article after it was nominated for speedy deletion--all of the public figures listed had publicly admitted to cannabis use and all entries were well referenced (making them not libelous). Prohibition of cannabis is an important issue worthy of Wikipedia's attention, and I think interested parties would benefit from examining the scope of admitted usage among public figures (I'm assuming the article wasn't deleted because of cannabis's illegal status in the United States, but, if so, I would be happy to discuss the ethical issues involved).

Could you by any chance explain a little more about how exactly the article violated the "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" issue you cited as the reason for deletion? I'm just unsure precisely what about the page violated Wikipedia's guidelines. (Also, would you recommend a better place/page to begin this conversation?) Thanks for your help! RPS (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

G8 was for the talk page, which was dependent on the article page. The article was a recreation of a similar list which was deleted after this discussion. If you feel the deletion was inappropriate, you are welcome to bring it to Deletion review. I have no strong feelings on the matter. --Versageek 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That link was exactly what I needed, thanks for your help! RPS (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone anon added a link to a shemale webcam in one of the articles I watch, (not something I want to watch, smirk), and xlinkbot didnt find it. Can any url with webcam in it, be added to xlinkbot, for that matter, how about searching for shemale too.BeckyAnne(talk) 06:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you have the buttons in both places, could you handle User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FHometowned? Thanks MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Imported & histmerged with wikt:hometowned --Versageek 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain my concern. Checkusers sometimes flat out lie. I presume that this is rare but it does happen. I am no technical geek. I just use my computer. 2 years ago there was a bad user which was far, far away from me. The bad user was in the process of being banned for a legal threat. People were writing about how bad he was. I wanted to know the exact sentence that was deemed a legal threat so that there could be a discussion. The checkuser assumed that anyone defending the user must be a sock. (I wasn't even defending the person) The checkuser lied to say "likely" when it should have been "unrelated". Even the administrator calling for the ban said that I was not the same person as the person who was to banned.

This is one of the reason why I say that banning and blocking people should be primarly based on edits, not secretive checkuser results. If the person is disruptive, the disruption is for everyone to see. If the person is writing unencyclopedic material (such as holocaust denial) then it is plain to see. When people try to get others banned because they want the upper hand and use the sock excuse, this is not right.

That's why I am in favor of a checkuser that points to openness more than secretive checkuser results. The wise and fair checkuser refuses to run many RFCU's. Many of them can be handled (sometimes by block) on the basis of evaluating the edits alone. Chergles (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just starting to follow the 'meta' aspects of Wiki around the time you were blocked, so I don't really recall much about the incident involving you. I do recall a feeling that Wiki had a bad case of Siege mentality at the time, which didn't really subside until we were all collectively slapped upside the head by this RfAR. It made enough of an impression on me that I felt it was important to address in my RfA later that year. I largely share your view on what should be used to justify bans/blocks. The checkuser tool is an adjunct to other evidence, not "Magic Pixie Dust" .. I do understand your concern and thank you for elaborating. --Versageek 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is my page Hitman Agent 17 ok and dose it comply with all the rules--AK-196 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)AK196

It looks ok to me and it doesn't violate any rules, however the current trend with fictional characters is to merge all independent articles in to lists, or into the main article for the work in which they appear. While I'm not fond of this practice in many cases, it seems to have general acceptance in the community and I suspect the page you created will eventually be merged or redirected to List of characters in the Hitman series#Mr._17. --Versageek 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

I've spent some time this afternoon cleaning up and updating a page for the band "the consumer goods." it had been left for about a year, so i tightened it up, added new band members, a new record, that sort of thing. i didn't read the details on external links closely enough, and added a myspace link, which your bot noticed and deleted... no problem, i totally understand. the only problem was that the bot actually undid ALL of the edits i made this afternoon, not just the one in the external links. is there a way that you could undo the undoing of the rest of the changes i made? i totally understand not wanting to throw myspace on there, but i'd like to think that the work i put into the updates won't be wasted.

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.174.205 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the bot, you can do the same - it won't revert twice in a row.. (as seen when you added a youtube link after the bot had reverted your other edits). Unfortunately, the bot can't make selective link removals. In the future, I'm hoping software enhancements to Mediawiki will allow us to handle MySpace and YouTube link additions with a bit more grace. --Versageek 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for resolving this so quickly, and for the explanation... it is appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.174.205 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on getting elected to Checkuser! I know you'll do a good job. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Versageek 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That article was an informational tool, would an article about Twitter be deleted for advertising? I didn't see it as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.41.100 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought our little friend Pee-Wee had gone the way of the proverbial dodo, the idiot pops up again. Thanks for the block. College kids and Coors Light don't mix.  :) Anyway, could I impose on you to e-mail me the IP contact info if the attacks did in fact come from UC Santa Cruz again? They took a very keen interest in the matter the last time I contacted them. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One bot owner to another, you might want to tweak XLinkBot slightly (it does sterling work btw), based on User talk:Ep1997 - if it's possible to do, it would have been nice to post within the February 2009 section. Y'see? Anyhow, keep up the good work. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - sorry to do this to you again. I recently updated and cleaned up a page for "The Consumer Goods" which drew the ire of one of your bots. You were able to go in and fix the problem, and now the same thing has happened to me in editing the page for "Tyler Shipley" the songwriter of the same band. The bot detected external links, and so it undid all of the changes that I had made. If you can look into this again for me, that would be much appreciated, and if there is something I should do differently, please let me know and I will.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.174.205 (talk • contribs)

Probably the best thing to do would be to create an account. When you edit while logged into an account that is more than 7 days old and has at least 10 edits - the bot will no longer revert you. You don't need to use your real name, just a nickname of some sort. --Versageek 00:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Versageek/Talk/Archive/3's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Versageek/Talk/Archive/3! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre. Will you be doing the blocks or should I go to ANI? Thanks again, §hep^Talk 02:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm one of the Rangers at Durlston Country Park. We were making a few improvements to the Durlston wikipedia page and noticed the link to the Durlston Castle website (durlstoncastle.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). I noticed that this link has been removed in the past and the user warned by yourself, and wondered what the etiquette would be for removing it again? My problem with it is that the site claims to be the "official website" for Durlston Castle, which is not the case - the official site is durlston.co.uk (the other link). It also contains numerous factual errors (eg. says that the Castle is the Jurassic Coast Visitor Centre, when in fact this won't be the case until 2011). Looking at some of the other sites set up by this company, they appear to be thinly veiled adverts for travel marketing - is this in the spirit of Wikipedia? Not to worry if there's nothing that can be done, but seems a shame.

Please email me at info@durlston.co.uk if you require any further information,

Many thanks,

Ali Tuckey Countryside Ranger Durlston Country Park

(Wikipedia user: durlstonpark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.180.146 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mehogganiewood (talk · contribs) has so far only edited to Akron, Ohio, its talk page, and his or her user and talk page to protest his innocence. I am 98% sure this another Sleepydre (talk · contribs) sock - should we ask for another Check User or what? I have semi-protected Akron for a week. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your fast response and help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

per: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs - thank you for attention to detail. I know the editors listed on the page were not exactly our star pupils - but felt that two wrongs don't make a right. I suppose that tagging something with a speedy (and my first I might add), that was already in MfD was just a tad bold. Guess I should apologize for that one - but glad to get admin. eyes on it. Thanks. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Versageek. What could be done about these [1] [2] [3] cross-wiki sleepers? Is there a way for someone on meta to globally block each of them on sight, or do they all have to be individually requested for a global block? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ...and when I said "globally block", I think I meant a block on the individual wikis, unless there's a more practical way of course :) ~ Troy (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a steward take care of the ones which were SUL accounts. One wasn't. --Versageek 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is actually User:Hamish Ross -- Possum Pint is just another sock. Hamish has just inadvertently given us some more information about himself -- as you can see, the Computer whizz-kid account was originally zapped by an autoblock on an IP that turns out to be registered to Southampton Solent University. From some of his other sock names, we can tell Hamish is a college student (see User:After nearly a year I've finally handed in my dissertation et al. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if you could check to see if Threeblur0 is another sockpuppet of Sleepydre? They are on a current spree of adding content added by the socks that was recently removed from Akron, Ohio after discussions. They added a link to Diamond Match Company, which one of the socks created. They've also recently uploaded a file at Commons stating like the other accounts that it is a "Scanning from goodyear museum library", yet they claim the copyright as their own. If that's still not enough to run a CU Threeblur0 mimics the name of the original account Troop330. I hope this is just a well-meaning user, but they've registered too recently for me to AGF. Thanks, §hep^Talk 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. §hep^Talk 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On this topic, Threeblur0 is requesting unblocking; I looked around and couldn't see that any of the other socks had ever done this. He seems amenable to avoiding editing the page on Akron; if that is the locus of the sockpuppet disruption, this may be worth considering. What do you think? Mangojuice^talk 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to comment, not sure if I can comment to an unblock. It looks familiar to Roberboy. §hep^Talk 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Between the technical and behavioral evidence I'm about 99.998% sure Threeblur0 is related to the recent batch of Sleepydre socks (the .002% uncertainty involves black holes and sunspots.). If this fellow wants to 'fess up to his misdeeds and make an attempt at being a productive editor, I'm sure we can dig up a 'second-chance' template to help guide him in his efforts. --Versageek 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if he simply agrees to use only one account, there's no need to force a confession. But I do want to understand what exactly the area of disruption is. Was it just the Akron, Ohio article, or broader? Mangojuice^talk 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

<-I'm not opposed to giving this person another chance. The technical evidence for puppetry is pretty solid, but my very brief evaluation of the behavioral issue that led to the original blocking of the puppetmaster is that it was mainly a content dispute where one party (the fellow who has been socking) was ignoring consensus and had some issues with copyright claims. IMHO, this is the sort of situation where I'd rather see the individual acknowledge (doesn't have to be public acknowledgement) the issues that led to the original problem, publicly commit to sticking to a single account & be unblocked to join the ranks of productive editors, rather than wasting everyone's time chasing & blocking technically connected IDs over & over again for some foolish n00bness committed a long time ago. --Versageek 20:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

the bot mistakenly deleted what is arguably the most essential external link at this time: Mr. Wilkerson's blogspot. 70.248.74.88 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot won't revert to a version of it's own. Thus, if you revert the bot, and don't edit the page again until after someone else edits it, the link will remain. I see it's managed to stick now. --Versageek 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i posted a legitimate link that complies with the policies and guidelines on the "John Odom (baseball)" page, but your bot keeps taking it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.215.101 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally Facebook & MySpace type links are discouraged unless the are the subject's personal, official site. In this case, the Facebook group is more of a fan-site / memorial. You could ask on the article talk page if other editors feel it should be included. If there is consensus, it can be re-added to the article. --Versageek 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I've noticed that the site www.caramica.blogspot.com, containing old, vintage photos (most of them pre WWI, so not violating copyrights) of some Romanian cities like Giurgiu, Turnu Magurele, Craiova, etc. have been removed and considered as spam on en.wikipedia.org and also on de.wikipedia.org , although they have been accepted (even by human operators) on ro.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia.org and hu.,it. and many others.

an example of link removal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giurgiu&action=history (date 8 march)

Please let me know if I've done something wrong or if it is a mistake made by the Bot or if it's because the site is on e free domain.

Best regards, Mihai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.27.48 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Dear Versageek,

I request to Greek bots to admit former Turkish names of their cities, towns and villages. Thse names are acknowledged from Ottoman archives and Turkish websites of Refugees from Greece. Refugees of Greece often visit former resided homes. We faced with our history. In my opinion, Greeks must face with their one. Thanks, --Cemsentin1 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Thanks,

Uh the location that you put as Akron if off by a couple cities, im quite certain that we are not that close to the Penn border (i think Youngstown is). I also fixed the licensing and info on the other map.--Threeblur0 (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the map that you are using from city-data.com is subject to copyright, thus your modification of it can't be released under a different license. I suggest using a map from census.gov, then add the dot in the appropriate location. --Versageek 13:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I trried following the link to find map but my computer said ws broken, could you point me to the site?--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

<-Try these instructions (It apparently doesn't allow you to deep-link the maps)..

• Go to http://factfinder.census.gov
• Hover over 'Maps' in the left frame/column

• select "Reference Maps"

• Select "Ohio" from the dropdown & click "Go"
• Where it says "Zoom" at the top, click the second bar which will zoom to the "1625 miles across" view.
• In the left column, under where it says "Change" click "Boundaries & Features"

• On the first screen in the popup window, uncheck everything except "State"
• Click on the tab in the popup window that says "Features"

• uncheck everything except "Stream; Waterbody"

• At the top of the popup window, click on "Update"

• Use this screen for your screen capture, then use an image editor to crop the map and add the location of Akron. (I use the free version of FireShot for Firefox, it's great!).

You can tinker with the settings to get a map with the amount of detail that you're happy with. My instructions above, will give you a fairly blank map. --Versageek 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright and will do.--Threeblur0 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, please see the following disruptive edits (blanking of sourced content) by 70.112.4.25 and blocked 72.179.43.74. Both IPs: Austin, Texas, or banned User:Hkelkar. See this [4]. Checkuser needed to unearth the rest of the sockfarm. Thanks. Beanmore (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's likely him (based on results from the last set of socks we blocked, his original results are stale). There are a few userIDs, but they are already blocked. I don't see any new socks on those IPs at this time. --Versageek 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Atomicfunctional (talk · contribs · count) is possibly Hkelkar. See [5] and [6] or [7]. Beanmore (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, Blocked --Versageek 16:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Just checking to make sure you got my reply. My ISP sucks half the time and generally it won't let me send out mail. §hep^Talk 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks :) --Versageek 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. §hep^Talk 06:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Versageek, do you mange Anggun's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Kembali (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No individual really 'manages' pages on Wikipedia. They are written and maintained by our users. The bot reverted your addition of an email address because email addresses aren't usually allowed in articles. If you are trying to contact the subject of the article, it is unlikely they would ever get the message. --Versageek 11:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you plese atleast warn stephshep about falsyfing information and his other actions, its ridiculous and obvious how and why he's editing how he is. example is the consensus statement he made about the data removed that never even happened.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

your bot deleted part of a page with no problems on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMS Old Al (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

which page? A diff would be helpful. Thanks -- Versageek 03:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding a possible loosening up. FMAFan1990 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments on the SPI you commented on. I am being quite sincere and I would hate to see my ignorance of the rules over what constitues meatpuppeting cause Marfoir problems. If you haven't, please look at the timeline on all of this and you will see that I recused myself from the voting and mediation related to the issue that started the SPI (Captain Kirk). Furthermore, consensus was changed/ reinforced because many other editors came forward and agreed with the point of view that I happened to share. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we indef block you and not Marfoir, because you recruited him and not the other way around? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

hi im doing a research paper on fashion. i relized that uyou were the last one to edit this research. i need your name so that i can put it on a mla --71.81.29.111 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)citation machine.

please!!!!!!!!!!! im a 6th grader and my name is lola

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put this unblock request on hold, and as the blocking admin, you're invited to comment. Xclamation point 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, please do not grant the request - the disruptive user who prompted the range block is still quite active with talk-page foolishness and CU info on the requester matches that of the disruptive user. --Versageek 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to trouble you. User:Julcal I strongly suspect is Mwalla. They are apparently brand new to wikipedia, but appear to like editing antidepressant articles and ihaving conversations in the middle of articles, inserting nonsense. They also show up on the benzodiazepine article where I am editing, another coincidence, inserting nonsense and trying to stir up arguments. Here they know terminology such as "bold edit so obviously are not complete newbies to wikipedia but yet they use main article pages as talk pages. On there User_talk:Julcal talk page I see they are creating unnotable article pages again. Here, inserting nonsense into an article.[8] On the surface it looks like someone innocently trying to improve wikipedia but Mwalla as you know does this follows people about and trys to insert nonsense into articles but subtly as if they are improving the article. I initially replied to them here, Talk:SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#Non-existent_reference thinking they were an innocent editor who was mistaken but then when I saw the same editor editing the benzodiazepine article in a dubious manner I then got suspicious and checked their contribs and I strongly suspect that they are Mwalla. Notice here, they know all about userboxes and here [9] but yet are a new user who innocently uses main articles as talk pages? [10], [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Here again using main article as talk page [16] starting frivilous arguments and debates over nothing. Another cooincidence is their edits seem to have gotten them into conflict with anon 70.137.xxx.xxx who you will remember was a person who had problems with Mwalla before. See User_talk:70.137.165.53. Apparently some editor who I don't know, has already warned them that they might be blocked, so already they are starting to annoy the community.[17] I would be very very surprised if this is not Mwalla. What shall we do? I will also send this to Versageek incase you don't log on for a while. Ya know I wouldn't mind so much if they were block evading, it is just the silly games and unconstructive edits, antagonising people subtly is why I am annoyed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey versageek, please private message me. There was a wikipedia page that was locked/protected that was clearly a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnooooo (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

i hear you deleted the page weedathon how dare you it is a real event which is now called weidathon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franktheemo (talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does this guy get to use Wikipedia for posting his resume?

He is clearly engaged in self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.92 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to ask for your assistance with following problem. I am administrator of the simpleprogrammingtutorials.com website and, due to being novice at Wikipedia, my site is now blacklisted at User:XLinkBot, which is by far mean, that links to my website never appear on wiki. Could you please remove it from a blacklist. In my turn, I am seeking for a methods to link my site, which doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.28.246 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

hei how can i become the editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsanrao (talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, How come your bot is leaving welcome messages for people? dottydotdot (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

XLinkBot leaves what we call "WelcomeSpam" messages when it reverts a user's addition of an external link(s). They are a combination of a generic welcome message & a spam-1 warning, sometimes customized for the type of link that was reverted. The intent is to get the user to read our policies and guidelines before they continue editing. --Versageek 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK cool, thanks! dottydotdot (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have listened to that little voice in my head which claimed that I was dealing with another "Petergriffin" sock. Sucker that I am, I unblocked the sneaky little SOB and caused a lot of work for other editors. Thanks for blocking that account. I'm not easily swayed by socks and there is no way on earth I'm letting him get the best of me again. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Siospeedec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock of this guy, or of the other recent harassment sockfarm I know about, which includes Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a member of the Fondesep clan. It's blocked now. --Versageek 06:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. The one intriguing question is where this guy Fondesep came from. He has somewhat the M.O. of Pioneercourthouse but apparently is not connected, at least not in a technical way that checkuser has been able to pin down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you blocked those latest MascotGuy socks. I cannot thank you enough for doing such a quick CU on this idiot. I'll know who to turn to next time he decides to create a sock farm. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two of those three IPs were public terminals - he's walking around and using any open computer he comes across to create his accounts (in this case, an Apple store & a government building). At least he'll have to walk a little further for the next few months. --Versageek 02:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Well, we'll give the little so-and-so some exercise. I wonder if that Apple store was in San Diego over at the Fashion Valley Mall, assuming he's still in San Diego. I went there with my brother-in-law when he bought his new MacBook Pro. In fact, I tried logging on myself and I was amazed when I was able to. I thought for sure that a place like that would filter a site like this, but I guess Wikipedia is pretty tame as websites go. Anyway, thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re this, please could you visit WP:CHU and shed some light? --Dweller (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. Please contact me as soon as possible. AdjustShift (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

replied. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. Please respond privately or publicly ASAP. Victim of Cybercrime (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Caponica related to any of the ip accounts? If not, I guess you should unblock him. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have unblocked and apologized to Caponica (although I obviously wouldn't have minded if you had done it for me) --BozMo talk 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we'll ever be able to figure out which sockfarm the Axmann8 impostors are coming from. He apparently left his IP address on WP:ANI, which might help. It's somewhere in northern Virginia, which sounds similar to a sockfarm from this past winter or so, under User:KingsofHearts, but it's hard to know for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the article about Cameron Ajaye on March 2008, because you said it had no significant importance. That was an error on your part, Cameron Ajaye is The Second Comming of Christ. The page was never completed, you deleted it before it was given a chance!!Type his name on Google and you will see that he exist.........just as Tupac Shakur(The reincarnation of Jon The Baptist) did!! Cameron's father Eric Ajaye is a well known Musician as well as his uncle Franklin Ajaye a well know actor and writer.Please put in a little verification work before you delete articles that would give Wikipedia readers a uniqie insight on the life of people who are in the process of making EXTRAORDINARILY changes that will affect the world , before most are even aware that they exist! Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about, sharing information and enlighting the masses via an internet database. It might sound hard to believe, but if you check the information i gave you in this letter as well as the article you will see the truth of this statement!!To show that iam not a looney i will give you examples of my knowledge of spirituality and let you decide. Jay'z aka Shawn Carter is Simon Peter reincarnated, Kanye West is the disciple Jon who wrote Revelation in The Bible, Michael Jordan is King Solomon, 50cent is King David, Paramahansa Yogananda is The Buddha aka The Holy Ghost of Godhead persona spoke about in the Bible. If you are familiar with Astral Travel you will know what i say is TRUE and you will know that i have given you a "Gem" of information. What you do with it is up to you,but the least you should is reinstate The Cameron Ajaye page and allow it to be finished and/or Write one about Eric Ajaye!!Peace and knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.141.68 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Until you can provide verification of this, published by a reliable source, I'm afraid there is no place in Wikipedia for your assertions regarding these individuals. --Versageek 04:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very busy in my real life at this moment. I checked my emails and have not received a reply. You may contact me directly on whatever this "matter" is. Thanks.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent my message to the address you gave about two hours ago. Hopefully it will arrive soon! --Versageek 04:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still don't have a reply. Was it anything important?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one bounced because my ISP doesn't know how to configure DNS :( . I just resent it - hopefully you will get it this time. --Versageek 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the message. I have replied.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am here to file a complaint about 98.215.223.155, this user keeps adding links to fansites which from my observation of rules and guidlines is in violation of wiki policies. Me and another user have repeatedly undone his edit, even the bot you control has had its revisions undone by this user so I hope you can deal with this user accordingly, thank you.- Deus257 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a couple of the Axmann8 impostor cases on Jclemens' page. I'll do a more thorough look on this later today. This disorganization is a result of my not bothering to keep an "enemies list", or maybe I should say a "chronic abusers" list. I might have to start doing that. Off-wiki, of course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with Bugs and llywrch here. Something is fishy, though it wouldn't surprise me if this user is suddenly "done" making edits. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Caden was probably Pioneercourthouse. The socks in the Axemann8 case were all from the same mobile network, and geolocated to a variety of places on the eastern seaboard between Virginia & Mass.. None of them appear to be Dottie though. There is little doubt in my mind that this person has been around here for a while (how else would they know about Axemann8 - heck, I had to look him up!) & is using this as an 'alternate account'.. but at the moment, they really haven't done anything block-worthy. --Versageek 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, we'll just keep an eye on it. Thanks for your help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is truthful, he's from Des Moines, which is not too far away. So if he tries anything funny, I'll go to Des Moines, stake out his house, wait till he's fast asleep, ring his doorbell, and run away. That'll teach him to mess with the kid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think the external link leading to a review of a book that concerns the subject of the article is a useful addition. I am, however, connected to the link--I wrote the review. Thus I should pass it to an editor.

I don't, however, understand how to post questions to editors on a Wikipedia site's "talk page." Can you explain that for me, or tell me where to go to find out?

Thank you.

Carterj98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterj98 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The folks over at WP:HELPDESK and explain that best. I'm afraid I've customized my interface to the point where my explanation wouldn't make much sense to you. Leaving a message on an article talk page is pretty much like leaving one here on my talk page. --Versageek 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

hey versageek! thank you so much for deleting this bio about me by this stalker, User:dolce444. It was about me and all the things that's really personal about my life and everything! thank you so much for deleting it or else, i'd be stalked by everybody! i'm not even that famous at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.145.16 (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping put my "article-in-progress" on a subpage, while I fine tune it. I have much to learn about the wonderfully wacky wiki world, and yet have wittle time to learn. If anything, endeavoring to write a wiki-article with the high standards that any encyclopedic venture requires is indeed an organic process...but endeavor I shall, for that is the grace of work. Enjoy your wiki-break.Wikiwicca777 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for sticking around at SPI even though the bot is down. It's more work, with suddenly less clerks and CUs, so thanks! Nathan T 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You comments would be greatly appreciated at the above when you have some time. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, I noticed you had commented on the investigation with respect to my id being suspected of being a sock puppet. I also saw a statement in my investigation from you that said it is 'possible' that I am a sock puppet. I just wished to find out the reasons you said that. Also, I noticed that against 'possible', a line was written - "same ISP than some previous sockpuppets" I wanted to know whether this is true or not; that my ISP is the same as some previous sockpuppets, and whether that would be enough reason to term this case as a possible case of sock puppetry. I wanted to request you to guide me to the right forum to find out the reasons, if this is not the correct place. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You do indeed share an ISP with the Mrinal Pandey sock farms. Lots of people share ISPs, so I don't consider it enough to say with certainty that you are another sock of that user. You also share a number of behaviors with the Pandey socks, this - combined with the shared ISP is what led me to state that it's possible you are a sock. You need to tread lightly on the IIPM article, there is a long history of attempts to whitewash there. Reliable sources aren't limited to large, mainstream western media outlets - especially when it comes to dealing with non-western subject matter. --Versageek 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:BaldPete is back editing with User:StillBaldPete. I spoke with another administrator, but they referred me to you as the blocking administrator and as a CheckUser. I see you're marked as busy, so if I don't get a response in 12-24 hours, I'll contact another checkuser. Cheers, — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, just wanted to update you on the situation.. I've sent you an email regarding it. Cheers, — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BaldPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on unblock-en-l asking for an unblock on the basis that he is not HesAChamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm inclined to accept that as I cannot find the signature phrase "self-promoter" in any of his edits. Checkuser does show that he shares an IP and an identically configured computer with WhattaFeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SoltsTold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), HighShoolHotshot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SteveManess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he claims to edit from a library terminal. I'll check out StillBaldPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I told him that creating the second account pretty much destroyed any chance of unblocking given his editing and block history, but I still suspect he is a different person that got caught up in another users stuff. If you do unblock him put his name on my talk page under unblocked users so I can monitor him. I'll leave it to you. Fred Talk 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the block. The computers at this library are all the same and use software loaded from an image file, so that may explain why the technical elements along with IP addresses are the same. Regards, BaldPete (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the rangeblock you made, and the request for unblocking came here. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do find it funny. --Angeljon121 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

why did u revert my changes on the page urubhanga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznitz69 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed my account has been blocked from an IP range. I've sometimes used the library computer to edit articles as well as my own; maybe someone else at the library does their own editing as well--Robert Treat (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

I created a link via Youtube to add to the pronto pup wiki page and it was edited out... just wondering why this happened. Thanks! Otter2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.45.237 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versageek. I saw your comment in the history for the Internap article, and I can't tell you the effort that went into making the contribution neutral - in citing sources, taking any language that may appear biased out, etc. A lot of changes (I believe for the better) had already been made based on earlier conversations with Tedder. I think you'll find I'm more than happy to make changes to help it meet Wikipedia standards, but does the content have to be deleted completely? Please, any insight you can provide is appreciated. Thank you. Kkeller0704 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)kkeller0704

The article shouldn't read like a product brochure. It's ok to mention the names of the products and a sentence or two about what they are, but leave out the sales pitch. --Versageek 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

04:22, 20 July 2009 Versageek (talk - contribs) deleted "Abdul Ghaffar Junbah" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

You have deleted my article. This is about a self-claimed prophet. I myself does not agree 100% with his claim however, in term of whether there is a claim or not, it a fact. I have linked it to his website. Obviously, there is not much published in notable press about this but that is true for any religious leader, when they start up their campaigns. His significance is because of his claim only. He claims to be the promised one, who shall bring all faiths - whole population of the world - to one faith only. Ahmadiyya faith believes that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Promised Messiah (second coming of Jesus) and this person claims that he is the Promised Son as prophesied by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Please guide. --On.quest (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You may request a community review of my decision via the the deletion review process. There is a chance that the community will request the article be restored and sent through the article for deletion process. There are many, many, many self-claimed prophets in the world. I'm afraid that until this individual's claims are publicly accepted or at least formally acknowledged by the religious community, he really doesn't qualify for an article here. --Versageek 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We are new to Wikipedia, and I thought I was working within our user space. Guess not. Thanks for your help. Waukesha County UWEX (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you please guide me whether can I create the article you deleted if I have more references or do I need to discuss it with you first. --On.quest (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

check your email. Kingturtle (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied --Versageek 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I apologize for the misuse of the link to A Little More Interesting. I was following the example in the UK section of the same article. "Sex Shop" has a connotation that is not very positive and I wanted to show that not all shops are like the stereotype. Should I describe the differ types of shops in the article in order to provide informational value instead of pointing to our website?

I also do't agree with the deletion of the text that stated A Little More Interesting has a PHd on staff. I believe that this does have value in illustrating the range of types of shops.

Bssorrell (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of 'spam' in that article, most of which has been cleaned up now. It would be best to use text to describe the different types of shops, rather than linking to them. If A Little More Interesting is a notable establishment and meets our guidelines for companies, you could create a separate article about it, then link to that article from the Sex shop article, but external links to non-notable establishments are discouraged. --Versageek 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please restore the verifiable references your bot removed on Larry Jay Levine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.80.62 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this question is ethical, so I won't be offended if you refuse to answer... re: Greenock125, were there any other registered users created from that IP address? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of very obvious Greenock125 socks, as evidenced by usernames starting with "Greenock". They were already blocked, so I presume someone recognized them. --Versageek 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to remove CoM comments, only my request. This is a personal attack, so I'm removing my request. No malice intended. Scribner (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Scribner (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added another suspect account, Kxing (talk · contribs), to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kxings that was blocked over a year ago. I'm not sure if this needs a checkuser update or not give that it is a blatantly obvious sock, but I thought you should know. --Farix (Talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's too old for Checkuser to be any good, but looking at it's deleted contributions - it is certainly the same user.. (they created the same article in 2008) --Versageek 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Tamara and I am personal assistant to Ms. Fuentes. Together her and I have revised her Wikipedia but unfortunatley it keeps being reverted back to the original by you. If posslibe can you repsect her wishes to leave up her version of wikipedia. If you have any questons please email me at <redacted>.

Thank You,

Tamara 21:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am not Versageek but I am the administrator who blocked you for repeated reversion of the article in question. I left a message on your talk page about this issue. Please go there to read it, as it addresses your concern in more detail. --Chris (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The box seems to be down .. completely. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

/me curses in the general direction of her ISP ;-) --Versageek 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that both the Domaining and the Domain name speculation are up for AfD due to the same user ( Magicalthirty ) who seems to have a rather curious idea that domain names are registered to take advantage of "Future Trademarks". The Domaining issue was settled after discussion and now it seems that this user has nominated it again. Surely the whole principle of Wikipedia is that articles can be developed into worthwhile resources? Jmccormac (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I loathe the huge amount of 'low content, low value' sites that litter the Internet thanks to domain farmers, I do believe that at least one of the two articles you mention needs to remain. There isn't much I can do though, apart from voting in the AfD's myself.. which I will do. --Versageek 22:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The parked and PPCed section of .com/net/org is quite significant but a lot of it is now turning towards development as PPC revenues have fallen over the last year. There is a clear difference between domain name speculation and cybersquatting, and the distinction tends to be lost sometimes. Jmccormac (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Versageek/Talk/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Katsumasahiro2. Thank you.

Figured you may want to comment on this --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing ANI thread that may require your input since you were a part of a checkuser on the subject of the thread. If you would kindly post to the thread when you have time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL for policies on external links, YouTube isn't even listed on the page, so rather than worry about it, I put the link in the talk page, and called your bot stupid.

Since it is your bot, I am letting you know. FX (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content.". There are many problems with these links, though there are good cases. You might want to re-read that guideline, and if you still believe that the link is adding to the page, you can revert the bot's edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The account Childof12AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [18] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. I'm also taking this info to another admin when I find one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While the two accounts don't share IPs, they do share enough that I'm certain they're socks of each other. Hard to say if they are PCH though.. I see they've both been blocked at this point. --Versageek 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. We'll see if this becomes a recurring problem, or remains just a once-in-awhile thing. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, Versageek: [19] Wknight94 ^talk 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

...my talk and/or that of User:Drew R. Smith ... we ran the same check. You get the same result? ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a current employee of Casa Manana and would like to make you aware of a wiki user called Ziggypop who is making unsubstantiated and defamatory statements on the Casa Manana wiki. What do I need to do to block postings from this user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemcman (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you look in on User_talk:XLinkBot#helpme; a new user Q4sales (talk · contribs) asked a q there, and used a {{helpme}} to do so; I removed the {{}}, and explained use of helpme on their talk.

(I also 'welcomed' them, and will check on possible username vio)

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find in the SPI where anyone determined whether ThreeE or Dottie are connected with Childof12AM, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This SPI case is archived, but the edit warring at Duduk article continues. Could you please check if 67.150.124.123 (talk · contribs), who is reverting the article now, is Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs) evading the block? Thanks. Grandmaster 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. The IP is part of a dialup pool from a different ISP in the same general geolocation. Blocking the IP won't help, as it's likely to change the next time they dial in. --Versageek 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you semiprotect Duduk, or I should ask someone else? Grandmaster 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for two weeks on the WP:WRONGVERSION. --Versageek 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check if Monlonet (talk · contribs) is the same person as Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs)? He edit wars at the same article Duduk, like Zvartnotz2 did, and he joined an edit war on Urartu, which was previously reverted by 76.232.252.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Monlonet reverted Urartu to the version of 76.232.252.180, after the article was semiprotected. Looks very suspicious, especially considering that contribs of Monlonet almost exclusively consist of reverts on contentious articles, and that the IP points to the same location as the one reported above. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They geolocate to the same very large city, share a very large ISP & other very common technical elements. I see he has a tendency to edit while logged out, and occasionally appears to logout to edit - and he clearly shares the same strongly held POV about an obscure musical instrument as User:Zvartnotz2. I suspect at the very least, they know each other.. Is there any progress toward a compromise on the talk page.. or is that unlikely to happen? I can full protect it for a while if there's a chance the dispute can be worked out. Otherwise we're probably in for a run of Whack-a-mole. :( --Versageek 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is in progress, I'm trying to work out a compromise solution with other involved users. But this particular person is very unlikely to be interested in any dispute resolution, takes no part in discussions, and canvassing to get other people involved in his edit wars. I reported him to WP:AE, since the article is an arbitration covered topic. I think full protection is not required right now, the problem is caused just by 1 person. I hope the admins at AE will sort this out. Thank you very much for your help. I will inform the folks at AE of your CU findings, if you don't mind. Grandmaster 08:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check another 2 suspicious accounts, Soukrot (talk · contribs) and Nareg510 (talk · contribs)? They edit the same topics as the previous bunch of sock accounts, and appear to be sleeper accounts of the same person. Thanks very much. Grandmaster 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs) & Turk00 (talk · contribs) = Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of "banned user Ararat arev".
• Soukrot (talk · contribs) = Monlonet (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of Zvartnotz2 (talk · contribs). --Versageek 23:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All blocked per Grandmaster's request on my talk.  Sandstein  10:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. How about Proxyz (talk · contribs)? Ararat arev is known to use sleeper or compromised accounts. Grandmaster 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please also check Kazanciyan (talk · contribs), another suspect account? There are way too many of them. I think a number of articles should be placed on long term semi-protection, so that only established users could edit them. Duduk and Urartu are 2 such articles. Grandmaster 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't make any technical connections between Proxyz or Kazanciyan and the other users. They seem to be coming from different parts of the country. I've semiprotected Duduk for 6 months, Urartu was already semi-protected. --Versageek 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again. Grandmaster 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again, but could you please check another bunch of suspicious accounts? Aptak (talk · contribs), Harut8 (talk · contribs) and ItsAraratNotUrartu (talk · contribs) appear to be the socks of either Ararat arev or Zvartnotz2. Thanks. Grandmaster 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Harut8 (talk · contribs) and Zaven2 (talk · contribs) as clear socks of Zvartnotz2, and ItsAraratNotUrartu as a sock of Ararat arev. Aptak is from the wrong part of the country. --Versageek 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 04:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check yet another account? I have a reason to suspect that Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) is Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) evading his ban. Or it is either Zvartnotz2 or Ararat arev. Thank you very much. Grandmaster 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Different laundry drawer. I've blocked that account as a sock of blocked User:Meowy. --Versageek 06:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done on catching Meowy, I never suspected he was socking, though with his defiant behaviour it somehow does not surprise me. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Goes around and reverts the articles for the above socks, namely for Kazanciyan and Tamamtamamtamam (i.e. Meowy). Could you please check if the IP is related to any of established users, or it is just another meatpuppet? Grandmaster 07:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know who it is. 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a similar address from NY University, was blocked as a sock of Hetoum I (talk · contribs): [20] I think it is time to ask for indefinite block of that user, considering the number of sockery bans. I will file a report at WP:AE. Grandmaster 07:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Findings posted; waiting for you to confirm or refute. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Avi. I posted on the SPI page. --Versageek 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. A simple web search will establish that Prof. William Lorenz does indeed exist and is the originator of the concept "domaineering" as more or less synonymous with "domain advertising". Please see for example Urban Dictionary or Webster's Online dictionary. Additionally, there are not found any competing claims to the origins of topic. "Domaineering" is a balanced and neutral scholarly article which is devoid of advertising.

Kindly unprotect and restore to original status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.37.185 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links to this Professor William Lorenz seem to be based on reusing Wikipedia material. Apart from a "ratemyprofessor" style link (Erie Community College) to a professor of that name, there is no clear reference or link to this discovery of "domaineering" by the above professor or any academic or published source on this claim. It is not verifiable as there seems to be no sources on this other than the Wikipedia article. Jmccormac (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ArticleAlley, which you deleted, does meet the editorial criteria for notability:

from WP:WEB # The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

That's why there was the Google Books citation, which clearly shows several, independent, authors who have cited ArticleAlley.

I am republishing the article and I'm going to watch the page and if you PROD it for speedy deletion again, I'm going to remove your PROD. You're not a dictator, only an admin. 34pin6 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the above message. Although strong, I feel it falls firmly within the limits of "parliamentary language". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I sent you email few days ago. I believe polite admins usually respond their emails.Thanks.mbz1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.128 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it fairly certain that Max Antean is a sock of Pioneercourthouse? If so, it would explain a number of things. Also, would the broader range of IP address blocks also theoretically prevent him from updating User talk:Pioneercourthouse‎? I think he last edited it about 2 hours ago, which I'm assuming was before the IP blocks. The point being, if he's editing after those blocks, does that mean it's still not a broad enough block? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker told me it's "95% certain". That would explain a few other impostors of Axmann8 from last spring. It's odd that Axmann8 also turned up today after a 4 month absence. I wonder if there's any chance that Axmann8 actually is Pioneercourthouse? I think not, but it's a funny coincidence that they were both active today and one had tried to impersonate the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User:Philbox17 is now using 24.37.21.164 to vandalize the article, would you please block this account. I assume it is User:Philbox17 at his work computer. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a garden variety vandal, and he stopped a few hours ago. I have little doubt that Philbox17 will be back, but this IP doesn't appear to be him. --Versageek 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

okay 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs) & Turk00 (talk · contribs) = Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs), a blocked sock of "banned user Ararat arev".

Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) swears he's done with editwarring. I'm giving him a "fresh start". I'll monitor him, and may run a checkuser on him from time to time, but please don't automatically block him. Whoever he is, he wants to try again. Fred Talk 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Events have overtaken the relevancy of my comments here but fwiw... The evidence from my CU on this user tied him to Ararat-arev via a previously identified sock of Ararat-arev. The evidence tying him to both Turk00 (talk · contribs) & Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is particularly strong - to the point where "my roomate/friend/family member" would be the only plausible defense. I'm always willing to give someone a second chance, particularly when an established user is willing to monitor them - but IMHO, it may be a bit too soon for this user.. --Versageek 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you please have the admins shut down yet another sockpuppet account of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Philbox17 this time it is User:Québécois1837. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70." that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The user 76.64.152.111 try to block all the users who edit the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article. He erase all other users contributions and try to block everybody editing this article by calling them sockpuppets. Considering he try to block everybody and don't want to cooperate I ask you to block this anonymus user 76.64.152.111. Thank you. User:Québécois1837

• Hi, would you mind advising the editors User:DGG and User:Frmatt that I am not involved in an edit war. I am trying to stop the recreating sockpuppet from vandalizing the article. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, thank you for blocking User:Québécois1837 as a sockpuppet. The article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois has been locked down for a couple days. I hope the admins that are policing it now, will be able to identify the RRQ members sockpuppets and take over for me. I would like to move on to other things. Keep up the good work! Thank you again. 76.64.152.111 (talk)

Hi,

Not sure why you keep deleting the link to this article. It is not spam, but real, helpful information to people who need help with local search. The article has valuable and appropriate information, and it is a good addition to the common understanding of the subject, especially among small business owners.

Apologies if I didn't understand Wikipedia guidelines. In my case, at least, it shows that I am just a regular person and not a professional spammer.

Best,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.144.32 (talk • contribs) 16:04 25 September 2009 (UTC (UTC)

Hi, keep on blocking those sockpuppets -:) 76.64.152.111 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

just made a disastrous revert. please watch out. [21]--Moflocker (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of NPOV, I tend to favor the wording in the sock's preferred version. It doesn't use words like "only" and "was a flop". Please consider this before reverting. I will however; block the sock (confirmed by CU tools), as he's evading a block. --Versageek 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, those terms/quotes are directly from the third-party, arm's length, NPOV citations that are provided to support the article. The sockpuppet is a non-arms length member of the RRQ and lacks NPOV. Thank you, for continuing to police the article and sockpuppets. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have replaced my sentence with a quote, which is fine, but could you put the citation back to support the quote? 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Versa, I left a message over at User talk:76.64.152.111 but thought I'd leave one here too...I strongly support you working with this sock to rehabilitate them and hope that you succeed! I'm going to continue to work with the ip to try and get them to come to an understanding that they are sometimes just as NPOV as Philbox17 and to help them become a more neutral editor. Frmatt (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I filed a CU request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Since you have previously performed a CU on one of the listed accounts, i.e. Kazanciyan (talk · contribs), maybe you could run a CU for this request? Thank you. Grandmaster 06:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Patriote17 is back, this time as User:NordiquesQC. I have started a SPI and an ANI about him. He has also made a personal attack against me on Talk:Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois#Complaint_against_User:Frmatt. Frmatt (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." NordiquesQc (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2009

User:Frmatt clearly admit that he is doing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.64.152.111, in the section your leaving. "you've done some excellent work! WP always needs more editors, especially those who are willing to do vandalism fighting like you have been doing." He give credit to user for making vandalism on the RRQ page, it is his own words, there is a serious problem with that user. NordiquesQc (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009

Hi there. I saw you speedied the above page. I wanted to see if you'd be willing to reconsider your decision. I think the content asserted sufficient notability, and the there were more than enough sources to establish that this was a notable establishment, including coverage in both local and national media. Thoughts? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Melt Bar and Grilled. 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. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently made grammatical clarifications and source additions to the page which in its entirety were reverted by your bot because of the Dillinger Escape Plan's Myspace link which wasn't the correct format.

I'm not going to do this over again although if you're in a good mood please do it, while "fixing" the myspace link.

-65.184.68.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

I have blocked the bot that did this edit, which is vandalism. Presumably the bot removes external links. This edit did not just deleted an external link; it undid the whole edit, which contributed a substantial amount of material. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot reverts edits in which links to specific domains are added. Experience has determined that removing only links or reverting only the edit in which the link was added when the editor has made a series of edits causes more problems than it solves.

The domains which XLinkBot reverts are listed at User:XLinkBot/Revertlist, Any administrator may edit this list, it's format is the same as the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Domains such as tripod.com and youtube.com are reverted when added by IP editors or non-autoconfirmed editors because they are more often than not, used inappropriately. --Versageek 18:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I am going to add to that: Removal of the tags, although in good faith, was certainly not appropriate, and the insertion of the youtube links is also questionable, see WP:EL, which discourages rich media. The bot indeed reverts all edits by an editor, as past research has shown that reverting only a last edit often leaves broken pages behind, while reverting all of the editor and notifying him, friendly(!), that he has been reverted and that he can undo the bot edit while reconsidering, is really, by far, a better method than only reverting one edit. That has been discussed over and over.

As Versageek says, youtube and tripod links are often inappropriate, and especially when added by editors who are not familiar with our policies and guidelines, which is generally true for IPs and new users. You are right in saying that it does make mistake, but so do all of our anti-vandalism bots (or I could even say, all of our bots), and when I looked into some frequently reverted domains (like myspace), its error rate is pretty low. Moreover, the bot is programmed to be extremely friendly, and many people find it more helpful than damaging. I think your block is needlessly harsh. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check another couple of a suspicious accounts? I have a reason to suspect that Aptak (talk · contribs) is the same person as Verjakette (talk · contribs). Verjakette's last confirmed socks [22] were Greiwood (talk · contribs) and Lumberjak (talk · contribs). The account of Aptak was created soon after Lumberjak was blocked, but was not much active until recently. He is interested in the same articles as Verjakette. The IP 69.143.185.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was used by both Capasitor (see SPI on him: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capasitor/Archive) and Greiwood, the most recent socks of Verjakette. But it seems like this IP range is blocked: [23]. 69.143.131.204 is another IP used by Verjakette, which was confirmed by CU. Could you please check if Aptak could be the same person as the one who used those IPs?

•  Confirmed Aptak = Lumberjak

Also, Ptrustct (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA, who's only contribution are 2 rvs, one in support of Gazifikator (talk · contribs), who has recently been blocked for edit warring on the article Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, and another one in support of Aptak. Could you please check if Ptrustct is related to any known puppeteers or registered users? Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 06:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• They aren't Aptak, wrong country. These two are tough to call, they geolocate to the same city in Armenia, but other elements don't match. It could be a home IP/work IP situation, or it could be people with similar views. --Versageek 13:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Grandmaster 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I added a link on the Cat6 page under further reading on a how to make your own cable on our blog and the bot took it off. In the past my friends have done the same and never had a bot take it off. I just wanted to make sure the bot was working correctly or did I do something wrong?

Simplejacktard (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

--Mercy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplejacktard (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't been following the template discussions at WT:SPI, there are changes and the templates that you have at your subpage User:Versageek/CUlinks have been deprecated.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Noroton has a big ugly sock message on his user page which detracts from those nice paintings. His block is clearly explained on his block record. Should you consider removing it? It just adds humiliation to the punishment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned the block in a discussion at AN/I: WP:AN/I#Speaking of socks. I'm wondering what happened, and whether this is or isn't connected to the IP sock who started that thread, or any of the large families of sock farms that beset the American politics articles over the past couple years. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will comment on AN/I when I get home from work in a few hours. I'm fairly certain that Noroton is unrelated to the IP sock & the others you mention. --Versageek 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll also notice an explanation from Noroton on his talk page. Assuming it is in good faith he was not intending to violate policy and won't in the future. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject User:JohnWBarber is asking to be unblocked and says they will only use that account in the future. I've put the unblock on hold pending comment on the matter from you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<-I have no problem with unblocking Noroton or any one of his other accounts. I just ask that another admin do the unblocking. --Versageek 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I run a blog site. I have done several interviews(and will continue to do more) with various people. The website is jeffcramer.blogspot.com. Several of the people are involved with the films you have put on Wikipedia. One of them has his own entry: Paul Kratka.

I thought people who link on to the sites would want to read the interviews. Like any interview, it is one person's feeling about the film.

As I said, I would like Wikipedia or whoever is in charge of the bot to look at the site and decided if it meets the criteria or not. If you still feel it does violate the criteria, I will not add any external links. If you do not think it violates the criteria, please tell me how I can enter it without having the bot remove my entries.

Flellis (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)flellis aka Jeff Cramer

Hi, I would like to know why my edition has been reverted. Is XLinkBot malfunctioning?

Chris Hughes (Facebook) profile at "External links" section removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hughes_(Facebook)&oldid=322736712

As far as I know the following url: http://www.facebook.com/ChrisHughes is public, isn't it?

I will appreciate explanations, Thanks. --Michel r (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will undo the bot edit. Explanation: facebook.com links are most of the time unsuitable as external links, and this type of sites are discouraged per our external links guideline. However, there are some cases where it is appropriate (if there were no such cases, it would be blacklisted). This is one of these exceptions.

The bot reverts edits by new users and IPs when they include these links. For the bot, you are a new user, and hence, you got reverted. As the bot suggests, when the link is appropriate, undo the edit, which would be the solution here (and what I just did).

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Versageek, would you please answer some questions I have about your block of me. It would help me understand better why you blocked.

First, how were my statements in the DRV or AfD disrupt anything? The entire debate was (actually, is) on a very contentious matter because so many editors disagree so sharply with John Wartenberg's close. I'm wondering how you think I said anything that went beyond making a point and criticizing Wartenberg and various arguments -- sharply, but civilly. I've just reviewed what I wrote in the DRV, and I don't see it. Being "disruptive" matters because it's the only justification you made for your block, which went completely and directly against WP:CLEANSTART. After the block, I saw that Lar apparently thought I was "threatening" to take him and others to ANI or somewhere to get blocked. That was his angry misreading of what I said, but if I had said it, that wouldn't have even been uncivil either. Please specifically tell me what was disruptive.

Also, since I was simply using alternate accounts in a way that had been acceptable for so long, and not using them in any intentionally abusive way, what was the reason for blocking me rather than communicating with me? Nothing in my actions indicated I would not have listened to you. You said at AN/I that I was "unintentional" in being disruptive. Doesn't an unintentional violation merit something less drastic than a block?

Also, I didn't see any request for an investigation of my accounts at the Sock or Checkuser noticeboards. Did someone contact you privately, or did you decide to look into my edits without suggestions from anybody else? If someone else suggested it, can you tell me who? I'm not interested in harassing that person, but I'd like to know if it was someone involved in that DRV. I notice that at least two checkusers have been involved in that DRV: Was it Lar who suggested the investigation or block? Was it Alison?

Also, I understand that checkusers commonly consult with each other on sock investigations. Did you do that in this case? Was it Lar you consulted with? Alison? Please tell me who, if there was anyone.

I'm not interested in arguing with you, but I would like to get a better understanding of your actions and discuss them with you. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

First, how were my statements in the DRV or AfD disrupt anything? The entire debate was (actually, is) on a very contentious matter because so many editors disagree so sharply with John Wartenberg's close. ...

• I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy.

Also, since I was simply using alternate accounts in a way that had been acceptable for so long, and not using them in any intentionally abusive way, what was the reason for blocking me rather than communicating with me? ...

• Contacting you was my first instinct, but I allowed myself to be swayed by the current what did you know, and when did you know it atmosphere surrounding the use of alternate accounts. In hindsight, this was wrong and if I had it to do over again I would contact you first.

Also, I didn't see any request for an investigation of my accounts at the Sock or Checkuser noticeboards. Did someone contact you privately, or did you decide to look into my edits without suggestions from anybody else? ...

• As I was a completely uninvolved party, Lar asked me privately to evaluate the situation at DRV.

Also, I understand that checkusers commonly consult with each other on sock investigations. Did you do that in this case? ... Please tell me who, if there was anyone.

• I emailed both the arbcom & functionaries email lists shortly after I blocked the accounts. They may or may not have reviewed my actions. I usually consult with other checkusers regarding interpretation of output from the CU tool. In this case, it wasn't necessary. --Versageek 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(Please reformat or change the title in any way you'd prefer)

Thank you for your reply, and thank you for agreeing that a message to me would have been the better way to go. You may have seen that I'm discussing this on Lar's talk page as well. My biggest remaining disagreement with you is on whether I was disruptive, and it's one of my biggest concerns with Lar's position. You write:

I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling.

By that you can't mean Wikilawyering is a blockable offense. Please don't tell me this is the first block for wikilawyering on Wikipedia. I could say more about how I don't wikilawyer, but I can't believe that you blocked for that reason, so let's drop it. the tone bordered on trolling I've always thought "trolling" had more to do with not caring about the outcome and just saying things to hurt others (possibly for amusement). I try to have a little humor in my arguments, but I try not to hurt others with it. It seems to me that the only behavioral element that WP:SOCK policy mentions that would justify a block is being disruptive: "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption. -- [24] from the Oct. 28 version, the day you blocked; it's also worth noting the top line of that section [boldface added]: Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:) Do you agree that my behavior on those discussion pages had to be disruptive in order to trigger a WP:SOCK violation? I think that's the only way of reading WP:SOCK.

I strongly disagree that I was disruptive, and if you think I was, please give me specific statements, either quotes or diffs or even just what you remember. Did Lar, in his message to you, point you to any in particular? I assume any violation on those grounds would be a violation of WP:DISRUPT (the worst written policy on Wikipedia) If we can discuss specific statements, you and I might even come to agreement.

You also write: Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy.

Except if it was a WP:CLEANSTART account, which, in itself, would have been no violation. If CLEANSTART is going to exist, that kind of edit history, by itself, shouldn't be a problem. I realized that my taking a prominent role in those kinds of discussions would raise eyebrows, but I always expected that I'd simply get a message from a checkuser if I did something wrong. In my wildest dreams, I never thought what I was doing would be considered disruptive enough for a block. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John, It's pretty clear to me that we aren't going to agree on the definition of what is disruptive. We approach the topic from vastly different perspectives. I've asked the AUSC to review my CU actions. With regard to WP:CLEANSTART, IMHO: folks who want a clean start should avoid using the squeaky-clean new account to jump headfirst into a steaming pile of drama - it kind of defeats the purpose. :-) . --Versageek 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't humble. You blocked for it. Not only without a basis in policy, but for a reason that is against policy. The "spirit" of a policy doesn't tend to extend to actions directly opposed to the language of it. I'm concerned about this communication between you and Lar. He refuses to provide a copy of his message to you. There's too much wrong with all this, and I'll probably take it to ArbCom (it seems to extend beyond the purview of AUSC). If I don't do it in the next few days, I won't do it, but if I do, I want you to know I'm doing it because I'm concerned, not because I'm angry or think you're a bad person or anything like that. I think we can each agree that we're doing what we think is right. I think the communication between you and Lar should be reviewed by some trusted third party who can say that nothing very improper was part of it, and I'd want ArbCom to say that what I did is not disruptive. I do have, going for me, the common perception of disruptive as well as that WP:DISRUPT policy. I wouldn't want anything to happen to you other than to be set right on what disruption is.

I think I want to retain the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts, along with the JohnWBarber account. I think currently the other two are blocked indefinitely. Since you were the blocking admin, would you have any problem if I put statements on the top of both pages, linking them to JohnWBarber as the main account? I'll also disable the password on the Noroton account and put a notice there linking it to the JohnWBarber account. If I put notices on the other accounts and not use them, would that be all right? I'll also use the Reconsideration2 account (I was using that when I went to public terminals such as libraries; it was always linked to the Reconsideration account). Please unblock those two accounts (looks like Reconsideration2 was never blocked). JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just took another look at WP:SOCK and it looks like I can't have those other accounts, the way the policy is currently written. I don't know what gave me the idea I could (maybe Lar asking me a question about it on his talk page). If I take down the "sockpuppet" boxes and put up simple notices redirecting to JohnWBarber, would you object to that? JohnWBarber (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

<-I think the discussion between Lar & I does fall within the scope of WP:AUSC in that you feel it may have led me to use my CU tools inappropriately. Lar & I have both offered to send our chat log to them. I can tell you the conversation started with something to the effect of "I'm involved in this thing & I think there's a problem - can you give me a reality check".. and it was a fairly short conversation. I'm fine with you removing the sock templates & redirecting to your active account. The templates are intended to identify the primary account owner/operator, not be a Scarlet letter. If anyone gives you a hard time about it, let me know & I'll make the edits myself. You may want to keep Reconsideration2 for a public computer account.. that is certainly allowed. The other two were blocked with auto-block disabled, so you won't have any auto-block issues. --Versageek 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Page Advisor

I inserted my Name, Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari, together with mention of the required References, meaning, availablity of my Published Work, on the www: at <Shahid Bukhari@HubPages.com>. The reference, was essentially inserted in order to help you verify my Claimed Right, to the Insertion of my name, in the Muslim Scholar's Wiki List. It was never meant as an Advertisement ... Because, I do not need Advertisements.

And regarding my creation, of the New Catagory of 'Islamic Exegetist, of the 21st Century' ... It is, because, I am much beyond your 'Conventional' Definings of Islamic Scholistics. The E-bot at your end, however; is an e-Device, what seems to disagree with any such Changes, for it understands Islamic Cognitions, either, as defined in the historical perspective, or in the Secularized Islamic Sense and Terms, vis a vis the Current State of Sciences and Technologies.

So if I am now talking to a human, one with an open mind, I request you to read some of my Published Work, unless you are familiar with these at the referred Hub Pages. For I am neither a machine, nor do I have a prejudiced mind. What I write is in leading Humanity, to the Required Mode of Cognitions, relevant, to the 21st century, and the rest of this era goals, extending unto the third millinneum, and beyond.

In case you do not know, I have defined 'Matter' and 'Idea' in an almost Redefining of the Totality of the Fundaments of Secular Belief, these include, Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. presently followed, by way of Theories and Laws within Technology based perceptions of the Existential reality.

But reckon, I should now talk to you, only after you have read my above Referred 56 Papers.

Regards Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari 3rd November, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.47.22 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read our policies on Original research and reliable sources. --Versageek 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check if Brunotheborat (talk · contribs) is Hetoum I (talk · contribs)?. He is an obvious SPA, and reverts the articles to the same versions as Hetoum's IPs. More information about Hetoum is available here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. It is possible that he uses IPs of NY University. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would call this  Confirmed based on the obvious behavior & the IP range shared by the accounts. --Versageek 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 06:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please also check Fazeri (talk · contribs)? It is quite obvious from the contribs that he is the same person, but still. Thank you. Grandmaster 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed & Blocked --Versageek 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check yet another SPA, Djougha (talk · contribs)? I have no doubt that it is Hetoum, evading his ban again. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I know you are very busy, but I would appreciate if you could check the account of Djougha (talk · contribs), as he continues edit warring, and I need a confirmation whether that account is a sock or not. Grandmaster 06:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed & blocked --Versageek 06:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 08:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for asking an emperor's new clothes question, but if Hetoum is that anxious to edit articles, why not let him? Your geeky nakedness is embarassing. Meowy 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are always eager to edit articles, but if community banned them, then there's a good reason for that. If you disagree with the community ban, you must raise this issue before the wiki community. Grandmaster 05:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And is Versageek willing to go through this again (I presume Iravanly (talk · contribs) is Hetoum), and again, and again, (and perhaps again x100). All I can say is, I hope the members of that self-selected administrator "community" are never in positions of real power in the real world. They are the sort of people who would make the world into a lawless chaos of crime-ridden ghettos full of the alienated who have been turned into criminals by the unbending rules and attitudes of their "community" "betters" (who all now live in little gated community islands under an iron-fist of petty rules and peer pressure). Meowy 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to ask Versageek to check a new bunch of SPAs, if possible. Iravanly (talk · contribs), Cheepdreeft (talk · contribs) and GoldGolfer (talk · contribs) all seem to be the same Hetoum, gaming the system. Grandmaster 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet another sock, GrandamsterFarizismailzade (talk · contribs), trying to impersonate me and using obscenities in Azerbaijani language. Grandmaster 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbance, no CU is necessary. All the suspicious accounts have been blocked after my report at AE: [25]. However the admin handling the request advised me to contact one of the CUs to see if it is possible to use a range block or any other measures to prevent Hetoum from returning with new socks. Your advise on this would be appreciated. Grandmaster 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#JohnWBarber Versageek Lar -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I had added an external link on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

But it was removed. This is an excellent animation video on the subject. Please restore it.

Thanks, Siddharth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth.kulk (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Versageek. Your bot recently removed a link I added to County of Brant, for reasons I understand. I think the link may still be appropriate for inclusion. Would you mind taking a look at the County of Brant talk page and giving me your feedback? Thanks! Misty De Meo (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Versageek, Hi! The Angel investor article could you use some of your input. Things have been going along as usual, until this week when a [to my mind] over-zealous spam assassin with the user name Ronz decided that 100% of the external links on Angel investor were spam, and therefore wholesale deleted them. Since you, I and the other regular editors have been religious about curating those links for several years, I was a bit taken aback, and left a nice note on Ronz's page explaining what we've been doing, and why I reverted the wholesale deletion. Ronz took exception to my explanation, and has tagged the article, posting a note on the article's talk page claiming that we are all wrong, and that none of the links comply with wikipedia policy and they should all be removed. I obviously strongly disagree with Ronz's actions and assessment, particularly because we have worked so hard to come to a consensus over three years as to what links are appropriate for this article and have, among us, done such a good job of keeping that section clean. Given your own anti-spam wiki-cred, I would appreciate it if you could stop by the Angel investor talk page and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! Yorker (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londi2009 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In Islam we never put photos to our prophet Muhammad peace be upon him Because it is not permissible Don't Put them Please .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo yaser (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from the article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.--Versageek 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

While it is possible he may have not been a sockpuppet, I don't entirely agree with the unblock, Based on disruptive behaviour on the I Can't Explain, Pete Townshend pages.

This Included the User's removing cited content/ reverts even when i have tried conversing, mostly in relation to Jimmy Page, Which he appears to be continuing to "edit War' on such Pages, violating 3 point edit/reverts. I have tried to keep the cited content in reasonably, but he continues to do so. -This user is adament on including only certain information, and while I allowed it on 'I can't explain' he reverted a link to additional information, biased towards only pertaining to the claim Page played on "i Can't Explain" despite contrary information. From my understanding when parties continue to break this edit rule repeatedly, there accounts are blocked.I have not tried such, but if both our accounts were froze, to resolve the matter, that would be understandable.--Occultaphenia (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now that he has an account, you (and others) can welcome him and take a little bit of time to educate him about the collaborative editing process? --Versageek 05:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I was doing some checking up on that IP I blocked last week (don't worry, I'm up to speed on procedure now!) and I thought I'd check around to see if there was any further comment on the TP's of the other editors who commented/flamed on my error. Then I found this [26] post that you left with one of the principals. I had a feeling that it was going to end up being something very similar to this. Particularly in light of that IP's first edit was to Aero's page. I just wish you had have told me about your findings. I was going to have a Checkuser done back on the 25th. but I thought better about taking up valuable Checkuser time, regarding something so trivial. Let's hope Aero comes back with a better, more useful agenda. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

...please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Likely_User:Bravedog.2FUser:Dalejenkins_sock. While it is possible I am mistaken about who User:Windhover75 is, that account is clearly at a minimum a sock puppet account of someone. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can I pl borrow your code for getting the scroll bar on the talk page in the same way as your talk page has? Wireless Fidelity Class One _―Œ^(talk) 15:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Do kindly leave reply on my _―Œ^(talk) page, if you do. Thanks) Wireless Fidelity Class One _―Œ^(talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)Wirεłεşş▒Fidεłitұ▒Ćłâşş▒Θnε     _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yalhak would like to thank you for your contributions. I'm not sure he (yet) knows how to do this himself, so perhaps he needs more guidance as a new user. --AFriedman (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could ypu please check the account of Moonvise (talk · contribs)? I have a reason to believe that it is the banned Verjakette (talk · contribs) evading his ban. XrAi (talk · contribs) seems to be his recent sock, and earlier he used confirmed socks accounts of Aptak (talk · contribs), Greiwood (talk · contribs) and Lumberjak (talk · contribs). He also used in the past the IPs 69.143.185.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 69.143.131.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Previous CU on him: [27] Could you please check if Moonvise is related to Verjakette and his other accounts? Thanks. Grandmaster 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This was sorted out by other admins. Sorry for disturbance. Grandmaster 06:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An edit war has broken out at Akron, Ohio between our old friend User:Threeblur0 and some other editors. Not sure what the terms of your parole to Threeblur0 after the whole sockpuppet incident were anymore, but I have the feeling s/he may have broken them with these latest edits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble! FYI, I've fully protected the article after one of the involved editors asked my opinion; it seems like 3blur and the other two editors who are involved have all broken 3RR, but I thought it less disruptive simply to protect the page. You can see more of my opinions on the talk page. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me and sorry to interrupt you Versageek, but i have been discussing situations on the talkpage like you told me and tried to permanently refrain from edit wars but an editor started by removing things that were still in discussion from a day earlier, i even pleaeded for him to use the talkpage. Also i agree with all of Nyttend's actions taken.--Threeblur0 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your XlinkBot is overly sensitive, but I know nothing about bots and don't want to spend valuable editing time undoing its overenthusiastic de-linking or reporting instances when it does. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My copy says the governor was forced to ask for his resignation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AP story used by a number of the other refs on that page, directly conflicts with the Washington Post story.. it says: "The governor said Omeish resigned because he did not want the controversy to distract from the work of the 20-member commission appointed to study the effects of immigration and federal immigration policies on Virginia." .. I'm not naive though, I can read between the lines too.. given BLP concerns, maybe we should let our readers do the same?.. (I looked at the page due to an OTRS complaint from the subject). --Versageek 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Actually, the two don't conflict. 1) The governor asked for his resignation. 2) Omeish agreed to resign, inasmuch as he didn't want the controversy to distract from the work of the commission.

I've no problem laying it all out, and even saving the people the trouble of clicking through, by saying x reports y, and z reports a. Does that sound good?

Tx for telling me what brought you to the pg -- I've been facing more than my share of vandalism at a couple of other pages I'm working on (such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who was the imam at this fellow's mosque, and who you will see more of in the news tomorrow).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

<-After more research, I see that Omeish has a blog where he makes it pretty clear he was asked & agreed to resign. (although, that's all he ever used the blog for.. ). I'm just a bit concerned with the overall negative tone of the article though... for instance:

• Why do we need to include that retort paragraph that dismisses Omeish's response that the meaning of 'jihad' is misunderstood? The journalist is basically saying "he's lying".. that's not very NPOV.
• Why do we note the organization his brother is involved in, is associated to terrorism by the UN.. wouldn't it be more NPOV to link to our article on that organization (which should reflect that information).
• Why don't we report about his wife & kids like we do on most biographies - he has that information posted publicly on his campaign site.
• Why don't we note that he parted ways with the Muslim American Society a few years ago? (This was reported in one of the refs that's already on the article.. I forget which though.. )
• What's the point of having that big picture of the Imam in his traditional dress?

I don't want to whitewash the thing, but at the same time - we shouldn't be painting him as a terrorist - we should present a balanced set of facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. --Versageek 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

An initial reaction (without having looked at this closely): 1) I think NPOV has an issue w/editors having POV, not publications -- at least that is the argument advances as to Electronic Intifada, etc., being quoted in articles and used as a source; 2) WP generally doesn't rely on the "is sourced to which says" thinking, because the "is sourced to" may be changed ... that for intstance is the reason its not sufficient to rely in the refs in the "is sourced to" mentions, but necessary to repeat them in the first article; 3) sounds good to me--I see it was already reflected in the infobox; I just added it to the article body, along with the fact that his wife has a PhD in molecular genetics; 4) will look for it; if from an RS, agree it should be mentioned; 5) looked at the size--it is "thumb", which is the regular size; if anything, since it is not a head shot but a body shot, wp would countenance consideration of it being larger to show features; I think that's the only wp pic of the imam, and he is quite notable, and if you check article from this month in the press many actually use the same pic. I'll look at it more closely w/in the next few days when I have a chance, and see if I can come up w/anything more on the article and to address your points.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He (or someone posing as him) has decided its best to delete RS-supported material, charging that it is untrue and/or slander.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Please see the section on Threeblur0

I have restored the discussion on User:Threeblur0 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Threeblur0 and have added new commentary. --Beirne (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I've noticed that my contributions to the computer recycling page have been removed on several ocassions now. I have changed the language of my text to reflect a neutral point of view, I have edited the format in which I cite sources, and still my contributions are deleted. Can you please tell me what I am doing wrong? I see I am getting warnings about advertisment, but I am not affiliated with the website I am using for my source. I am referring to an article on the website which I believe to be valid and useful information. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswriting (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek :) I've posted a new proposal here at the Village Pump. Would be grateful if you could give your suggestions there whenever you have time. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you issue a level 4 warning an hour and a half after their last edit? They stopped once it had been explained why they shouldn't be adding those links. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that he had responded to your warning on your talk page. I've retracted the level 4 warning. Hopefully he understands the concept now. --Versageek 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to create an article about Jennifer Lynn Barnes and saw that the page had been created and deleted before, since you were the administrator to most recently delete the page do you consider the content at User:Shadowmaster13/Jennifer Lynn Barnes to be acceptable for addition to wikipedia? Or what suggestions would you make for it to be acceptable? Shadowmaster13 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly much better than the version which was deleted (which was a copyvio from her website). I'm a bit concerned that blogs are used as references, however I don't know the writing industry - so if the blogs belong to authoritative individuals/groups in the field of young adult books they may be ok. Has she had any independent media coverage of her writing? Anything like that would lend to her notability.. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals --Versageek 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, I was unsure whether I had just simply rewritten what has already been deleted and so thought I would check with you, I will keep in mind notability before moving the article into the encyclopedia.Shadowmaster13 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for reverting the recent changes to Yellow Pages. Commteam has been quite active today in enhancing Wikipedia's coverage of R.H. Donnelley's Dex directories, and I've tidied a couple of those contributions myself. I'm not sure whether this could be corporate activity, or how to go about finding out without risking the loss of a genuinely helpful newcomer. Advice from a more experienced editor would be appreciated. Certes (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your user page for 24 hours due to harassment and vandalism. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reply. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like in two cases this afternoon a pair of IPs vandalized HTML. You rolled back the second editor each time, but missed the first editor in both cases. Just a note to remember to look for interleaved vandal edits and restore an earlier copy of the page if necessary. Otherwise you can aid vandals in hiding their work; after all, an editor reverted vandalism, so the page must be good (or at least, that's how a lot of editors miss older vandalism). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

gah! I hate when that happens. Thanks for catching it! --Versageek 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I must admit this whole uploading and editing is really a bit beyond my capabilities, I tried to upload a series of pictures I took at the X GamesXIV but could not really grasp what I was expected to do,Im an old fart. I going to give it another bash later Thanks again and regards --2oceans1 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, May I please ask you to see here? What I said to NE should have been said to you. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) {{User:Stevertigo/Trout}}.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this new article and tagged it as a hoax but then discovered it's not a hoax at all . . . what should be done with this? Is it notable, non-notable, a concern? Seems to be a potential heavy-handed BLP issue whether the rumors will become truth or not (because it seems to be more than just a rumor). -WarthogDemon 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it as a G10, negative unsourced BLP.. --Versageek 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Due to the urgency of the situation, could you please perform a CU for this request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun? I had to take it here as well: [28] Thanks. Grandmaster 19:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, I hope you are doing well. :) Perhaps you could have a look at new material I placed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psalm Tours? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Ashot Arzumanyan based on his 'socking' after Psalm Tours was blocked, being a misunderstanding of our policies. I've also told him he best not use his account for advertising or promotion (like Psalm Tours was doing).. The IP is Armenian, but I can't tie it directly to this user or Psalm Tours. --Versageek 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

At User talk:Ashot Arzumanyan, the account is still talking in "We ..." - as if it is controlled or accessible by multiple individuals over at Psalm Tours. This is disconcerting to say the least, and quite possibly still a violation of WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please note, that 'We ...' is referring to the time when the role account was active and multiple users accessed it. It has nothing to do with the current situation. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'd like to draw your attention that role account Psalm Tours has never had sock puppets. Personal account Ashot Arzumanyan never coexisted with active Psalm Tours. I suggest that the block reason of Psalm Tours be changed to role account rule violation. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request: Cirt blocked me also on Commons, so I kindly request to unblock my account there. Thanks for your time and sorry for all this story. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This problem is already resolved. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I think you deserve this for unblocking me (an advanced wikipedian now!?) two months ago. Feel free to use this barnstar on your awards page (if any). Sincerely, Scieberking (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check your mail. If you don't see a recent one from me, please advise. (normally I hate these talk page notification of email thingies but I've sent you a couple...)

Hi, XLinkBot seems to be delivering welcome messages. I thought that was highly discouraged? Or has the practice been endorsed? -- Banjeboi 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot only posts to talk pages after it has reverted an external link addition from that user. We include a welcome message with the first spam warning, so as not to WP:BITE the n00bs/IPs. --Versageek 05:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Since you performed CU on Hetoum's socks before, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? Thanks. Grandmaster 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This bot has been messing up some articles by replacing various pieces of punctuation with their HTML entities, so I set "reverting_on=0" on the bot's settings until you can fix this. You can check the bot's talk page for reports from editors. Thanks! Wickethewok (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Btw, this seems to be the first occurrence of the error in this edit: [29]. Wickethewok (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was working on the bot, some necessary maintenance and some 'upgrading'. Unfortunately part of the 'upgrading' resulted in it retrieving decoded pages (using the API is not always complete). I have reverted the last edits, leaving the links for others. I hope that resolved that. I also reverted the coding to the point where I upgraded the page-retrieving, and the bot is now working fine again. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for turning it off quickly, Wickethewok. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of it! :) Wickethewok (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

Essentially I am trying to get BBML's band page more accurate. This page needs to only list Rachael Hughes & ND Shineywater as the members of BRIGHTBLACK MORNING LIGHT. Also, how do weupload a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBML's MANAGER (talk • contribs) 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wondering if you could consider coming up with a way to prevent XLinkBot reverting this kind of edit. The edit was entirely constructive, certainly made in good faith and the link, although of questionable appropriateness, is not outright spam or anything unpleasant so I'm wondering if it would be better to programme it just to remove the link, rather than revert the edit that added it. Also for the record, I reverted the bot's revert. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Very nice bot, but one thing. do we want it showing the e-mail it reverted? Buggie111 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that you've been involved in an administrative capacity in the whole Temple Lot/J.S. controversies. Can you have a look at what's going on at Talk:Temple Lot, and particularly this edit. I'm not sure if this is another J.S. sockpuppet or not, but the behavior is problematic to me whether it is or not. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good land—and this (!). Should I be taking this to ANI? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Versageek. Your bot hit a false positive a few weeks ago. Care to take a look at User talk:209.44.123.1#April 2010 and see if the problem is fixable? NW (Talk) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That one is tough to avoid, it picked up on the "referrer=" in the URL, ~99.95% of the time that a URL contains that string, it's someone trying to make money from click-throughs. The URL was valid without the referrer= string as well, it was probably just the place that the IP copied the URL from that included it. --Versageek 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose these two editors are related: [30]?--Chaser (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not related to CoM's sock, possibly related to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver/Archive, "Likely Group 1", not enough behavioral evidence for any action though. --Versageek 18:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the speedy tag to 2010 Imperial County earthquake and 2010 Offshore Oregon earthquake because they were prodded but I figured that that would get rid of them quicker. I'm willing to re-PROD them but I really don't want to go through the AFD process if it has already been PRODed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You can re-PROD if you'd like, there is a similar article at AFD now and it appears the outcome will be delete. --Versageek 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to explain why you undid the Comcast edits. Burr Hubbell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhubbell (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted based on the part of the edit I saw in pop-ups, then realized there was an additional portion I hadn't seen initially - so I reverted myself, then removed your speculation about why Comcast rebranded (which is considered Original research and fails our neutral point of view policy). , while leaving the sourced mention of the "Golden Poo" award.. It looks like your most recent edit removed both sections again. --Versageek 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question, when I log in today I saw this change: changed rights for User:Frcm1988 from (none) to IP block exemptions ‎ (range block collateral mitigation), what does it mean?, thanks in advance for your answer. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You share an IP range with a rather large group of accounts which have been spamming tourism information for months. I hard blocked that range and I gave you and one other user an IP Block exemption, so you could continue to edit. --Versageek 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. I can't believe so many Peruvian accounts were made only for advertisement. Thanks for the answer. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for speedily deleting this spamfest. Any chance you can close the related Mfd discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R Charlie Caccamis/Renu Cleaning? Ordinarily I would NAC it but I have participated in the discussion. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

May i know the reason why this page was deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti_Legal-_Terrorism_Day

We are NGO and we are celebrating this day every year..

Regards Atit

The article was moved here, I deleted the redirect page that was left behind by the move. --Versageek 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am following OOH industry trends and would like to post a paragraph on recent developments in the field. In particular, attempts to aggregate fragmented information on billboard pricing and availability. At the moment there is only one company doing this that I am aware of: www.bookabillboard.com. Could you suggest a way to post relevant links and info without getting it removed?

Thanks, OOHTrends —Preceding unsigned comment added by OOHtrends (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the submission and moved it to a different section of the article. Please review and edit if necessary. Sincerely, --OOHtrends (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

fio baby is amazing! How can you delete his page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.66.91 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:MUSICBIO. --Versageek 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a real person, just as the article describes. It is promotional but also relevant to Wikipedia readers, because it touches on scientific discovery. Having authored and published on Wikipedia in the past, I know I was sloppy in not citing references or tightening up the formating. The Evil Eye phenomenon is just that, an explained phenomenon, and one of great meaning to millions of people worldwide. My documenting of the ancient prejudice in present day America has historical significance for serious scholars of folklore, religion, medicine, and science.

My "paralletics" theory is also worthy of Wikipedia publication, as it presents what I believe to be a valid theory on quantum physics. I published the theory in its entirety in my Land Beyond Time story, so I would be spoiling the ending to create a page for it. Part of the reason why I published the theory is to test it mathematically with trained physicists, but also as a social experiment to gage the reaction of my readers. I'll have you know that my best fans are geeks, such as yourself--who else would militantly follow a science fiction series? Paralletics is much more than a plot device in a comic book. As I put it, I cannot present it as truth, it is a theory. I consider it not just entertainment for sci fi geeks, but actual intelligent innovation in the vast abyss of the information superhighway. Just off the top of my head, there is probably a page created for Fritos and Doritos, well, this is a quantum theory based on Einstein's most prominent breakthroughs. Even if I got the idea all wrong, it still carries more weight as far as being intelligent discourse, as compared with the majority of published entries devoid of relevance.

As for corroboration, there is a plethora of Evil Eye documentation, to begin with. As for my story concerning the "struggle between the jettaturs and the antijatturs," it is published in Variety as well as the Kabbalah Centre website and recorded on Youtube. Speaking of which, the Kabbalah Centre has their page locked so as to silence any criticism. Kabbalah itself is an ancient belief system, but the fact remains, the Kabbalah Centre is an international cult modeled after Scientology. The cults would have us believe that "There is no difference between a fledgling religion and a cult," that "All religions started out at one time as cults." Mainstream organized religions aren't using mind control. I'm sure many would completely disagree with that statement and I'm not downplaying indoctrination, but what these particular cults are doing to people is programming their brains like computers, almost like the Stepford wives. To get the other side of the story out there is important. Despite my personal battle and its entertainment value as showcasing supernatural belief in present day America, there is value in exposing a slick machine that tears families apart by isolating exploited followers. For the Kabbalah Centre to follow is the footsteps of Scientology is a bad sign, that's like a young banker looking up to Bernie Madoff. Greed drives the machine but also feeds it, as Scientology and now Kabbalah amass fortunes which they in turn use to buy politicians, recruit, build, and hire lawyers to squelch dissent by threatening nosey journalists and former members with slap suits. My standing up to them, as recorded in the entry, is much more than a magician's publicity stunt. This is an international movement growing every day, with foreign ambitions such as a shady charity in Malawi. Without getting too much into the story, Madonna "adopted" a child from Malawi and is trying to collect more. The child was not up for adoption, nor were the parents willing to give up their offspring. I would call that kidnapping. The media doesn't report on it and our government doesn't care. They paid off the local government to smuggle the young victim out of the country. And then there is Bill Clinton's involvement in all this. What does he have to do with Jewish mysticism and an out-of-control superstar kidnapper--I don't know. Let's just say that I have my suspicions.

The point is that by deleting me, you are inadvertently helping them to cover up the story--precisely what they want. These celebrity cults are all about image and to tarnish the perfect picture is to show the man behind the curtain. I've taken up enough of your time. Please weight what I am writing. The Polo the Clown story is proof of witch hunt hysteria in the United States and proof of a major cult's role in it. Not only to make a name for myself, but I would really like to nail them for all the things they pulled and got away with. Paralletics is entirely relevent--it relates to Einstein's monumental contributions to human understanding. The article is also the story of a clown character, but do not let that diminish the importance of the bigger picture here.

yours truly, Polo

p.s. I might ad that I now see how it is confusing as the character is referred to as fictional. In a sense it is, but in some ways it is not. To my fans it's all an act and all in good fun, but to fanatical antijatturs such as the Berg family, it is real enough to warrant discrimination. To them, anyone who looks at them wrong is a "Destroyer of Worlds." A person who happens to be born with firey blue eyes is to be scorned, feared, avoided, and hated and this is what is being taught worldwide in their "Centres." As far as my supernatural rep goes, that has and is being documented and extends beyond the Berg family and their fastfood salvation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.203.107 (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR and WP:BIO --Versageek 12:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrongly tagged me. The edits I made are legitimate. I have a malicious ex-husband that put false information and bad links there. I updated the page to reflect the real data.Molleeb (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the article for speedy deletion because the article fails to mention anything that indicates the site meets our notablity guidelines for web content. --Versageek 21:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Versageek, I see you reversed my speedy on WP:STOCKS. I understand your reasoning, but policy is clear:

G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject

   or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.

There's nothing in that criteria which allows such pages if the subject agrees with them being listed. I'll refrain from putting the speedy back up, but I'm interested in hearing your take on this. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't threaten or disparage any of the people listed on it. The entries are about things that people did in good faith which had unintended consequences. It's a humorous reminder to think carefully before doing things. --Versageek 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Versageek- whomever you may be, I noticed you swiftly deleted my page about my poetry society: The Unsaid Poetry Society. Perhaps when I re-instate this page and allow you (and others) the privilege to recognise the contents of the society you shall rethink/reconsider your decision. Until then I understand, citing your informative rules on why it was my page was deleted. Perhaps you thought my page some form of self-promotion. Thank you for your administrative prowess and observations in this matter- and in general, Regards Dr Oliver F Doherty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofdoherty (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The information provided by you in the page called satpanth is not not true. Infact being this a religious matter, I would request you to keep the matter pending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutchipatel (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss in detail the changes you wish to make to the article on the article's talk page. --Versageek 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added information on the talk page as per your request. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutchipatel (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all you did was modify another user's comments to say the info on the page was wrong (when the other user actually said it was correct). You need to explain what specific facts in the article are incorrect and provide reliable sources for the material you wish to change or add. Please do not modify other user's comments on talk pages, create a new section for your comments. --Versageek 08:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you did add more specific details to the talk page. Thank you. --Versageek 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created new section on the talk page as required by you. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutchipatel (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Still I havent recd any comments on above talk page regarding my request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutchipatel (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have still not seen any changes on the page of Satpanth. I have already given my request to please look into matter. Satpanth is not only part of Muslim but it is followed by Hindu also. you can also visit www.satpanth.org for more information. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutchipatel (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

please don't delete the new page that i just created- I just add one link at your page, and that will be the last from me editing your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibe 0571 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel many still not able to produce good screen shot, that's why I added the link. It's not commercial, Any reason it was removed? And any way I can update my blog for compliant? thx for enlightening.

Modbus.ug (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the out-of-date Silent Descent wikipedia page and nearly everything I did was reverted by XLinkBot. The information on that page is now out-of-date again.

Please consider addressing this as the information is now at least 12 months old.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnymajim (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind hardblocking that IP for a couple of weeks please? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done --Versageek 00:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Looks like another ISP complaint to write up, ho hum. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Whack-a-mole: Brian Brackfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would you mind doing the honours again? Sorry about this. I guess he's changed his IP address. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent blocks of spambots whose only edits were to the sandbox, would you take a look at the following users with similar (congruent, actually) contributions?

• Deutschklose (talk · contribs)
• Gohollandgo (talk · contribs)
• Jetlagorange (talk · contribs)
• Snailroom (talk · contribs)
• Closedcircle (talk · contribs)
• Vivaespanas (talk · contribs)
• Democracydialogue (talk · contribs)
• Orangemidgets (talk · contribs)

Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. This user (Hellosparta) is caught in a range block that has been explictly marked as checkuser related. Since the blocking admin (J.delanoy) has indicated limited availability, could you take a look at the request? Kuru (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be part of the problem for that range. I gave him IPExempt status, not sure if there is an auto-block that would keep him from editing now and the auto-block finder doesn't seem to be working for me. --Versageek 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response; I'll close it out. Kuru (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand right, your XLinkBot removes bad external links, but why did it undo constructive edits by Rightous2 with this revert? Slightsmile (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been answered at User talk:XLinkBot#Tahan. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just replaced a link which had clearly been marked previously as "broken" with the correct one, and your bot just undid that. Please make it stop, that's ridiculous and vanalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dale_Farm&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.11.110 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither WordPress, nor Geocities were in place there. Please have a look at the policies and guidelines the bot was referring to. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit has no explanation on why you think the content is valid enough to add back in with no explanation. Please chime in here if you wish to defend the content. I can't see how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines at all, so any defence you could give would help the passage remain. Wentomowameadow (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

In this edit your bot reverted the changing of a notes.co.il domain to wordpress.com . The change to wordpress.com was fine, though. notes.co.il was a popular Israeli blog service, which was edited for quality and hosted many blogs by notable personalities. Unfortunately, the company closed down and most of the blogs that were hosted there, moved to wordpress.com . --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek. I am a new user. I tried to add a link and it was rejected. I thought it would add value to the article. I do not own the link and I am not the admin. I just thought it would be useful. Could you please review, and if you deem it valid, please reverse the rejection?

subject: Northern Exposure added link to a discussion group.

Thank You. Smokeymts (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Smokeymts

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all the awesome work of XLinkBot. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I've just create new page http://en.wikipedia.org/Viettel_CHT Why did you redirect him to Viettel_Mobile? It's diffirent page. Pleaes tell me why. Thanks

Hello! I've just created new page http://en.wikipedia.org/Viettel_CHT Why did you redirect him to Viettel_Mobile? It's diffirent page. Pleaes tell me why. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongsycuong (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the redirect for WP:WikiProject Darts, lots of WikiProject have redirect's to projects that don't include Wikipedia:. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
you have mail. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that you've deleted the above page, as the author I believe it's a relevant to Wikipedia because the firm is one of the leading proponents of Building Information Modelling which is paradighm shift to the way construction projects are managed. The firm itself has worked on numerous major iconic buildings in creading 3D CAD models that are used for the construction and management of those buildings.Sydney350 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read our guidelines on notability for corporations. It's possible the company may qualify, but you shouldn't write the article like an advertisement or prospectus. You need to include references from reliable third party sources which establish that the company meets our guidelines. --Versageek 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek,

I'm trying to edit the article on Dick Wetmore, but the BOT keeps reverting it back to the first iteration in which I had too many lines from an online source. I have been changing the content, but each time I improve it, the BOT reverts it to the first time. Hope you can help me:)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itwasthelark (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Versageek,

This is AlanbirdVIEW from Taiwan, a definite new Wikipedia editor (but extremely heavy user!!) committed to contributing a bit to its community.

per the revision I made to the page [ USS Missouri (BB-63) ] on 17:06, 18 September 2010 and followed by your BOT--Reverting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Missouri_(BB-63)&diff=385566265&oldid=385563662

I have no doubt on what has been decided and changed, due to the 'LONG STANDING POLICY' I observed on the editing section.

Yet, my original belief and intention to add this Video [YouTube - JAPANESE SIGN FINAL SURRENDER on USS Missouri] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh57jkS0Vaw) was because I thought this historical news footage should be a tribute and well explains the honorable history of Missouri.

If there will be any chance you would manually re-consider put it back for good, please let me know.

Thank you for your understanding! n.n -- AlanbirdVIEW (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, is there something wrong with the box? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Network issues, maybe conflicting DHCP assignments. I modified the ranges on my DHCP servers & it seems to be resolved now. --Versageek 20:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a message to you a while back about the deletion of WikiProject Darts which was a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts. Why did you delete it when there are lots of projects that have redirects to their projects called WikiProject Football etc. Could I please get a reply. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly your active as your are making loads of edits, so why do you refuse to reply to my enquiry. You are an admin, aren't you? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing things that only require mouse clicks, typing this reply required I locate a functioning keyboard. I deleted the redirect because it was tagged for deletion & cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. I'm not a big fan of keeping things because other stuff exists but I have no strong feelings about the existence of this particular redirect. --Versageek 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, sorry for getting annoyed with you. I never knew it was tagged for deletion you see. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I was wondering why did you delete my edits to the microfinance page? I know I am a new user, but I think that the IPO debate is a very important issue for the development of microfinance. I will appreciate any comments/suggestion/advices you have!

Thank you, Liza

The detailed IPO information should go on the SKS Microfinance page, rather than putting that information on the page which describes what microfinance is. --Versageek 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Versageek!

So do you think my contribution looks good enough to put on SKS' page? I think a brief info about the debate between Yunus and Akula on the nature of microfinance can be included in the microfinance page. Won't you agree?

Thank you, Liza

Yes, it looks good for the SKS Microfinance page, that page could really use a rewrite/reformatting if you want to give it a try when you add your information. :) And, yes - a brief mention about the debate between Yunus and Akula on the nature of microfinance would be great for the Microfinance page. --Versageek 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is the XLinkBot continuously reverting all my work on my company page? I was given the job of updating this page by the company itself.

-Film-Makers' Cooperative Joseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmmakerscoop (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the appropriate ways to link to a person's blog or twitter feeds? I just discovered that the CEO of Best Buy Inc. was twittering and blogging, I think that is very important information that is hard to seek out and is appropriate for there wikipedia page.

Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolass (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you please confirm this sockpuppet using the wiki-tools at you disposal and close both of their accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yomangani

Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Or get WritersCramp to chill out, whatever is easier. Yomangani^talk 13:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

hello, I'm Ahmed from Egypt, please review what your bot deleted, we are fighting to get a student union in our university, all our discussions were on facebook, that's why I put most of my links there. thanks for your understanding 3rby (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

why didn't you reply to me? 3rby (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for your fight and links to facebook pages other than an official page for the University are inappropriate. --Versageek 05:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

who are you to decide that? I am not asking people to buy anything, I am talking about facts, I didn't write even 1 opinion! 3rby (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

<-Please review a few of our policies, In particular our policy on original research, basically - if you want to mention the student union issue in the article, it needs to have been reported by a third party. I've left your current sentence in the article but improved the English grammar and formatted the link to the PDF as a reference. --Versageek 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As you deleted the article[31] while its AFD was still in process,[32] perhaps you might then go and close the AFD itself as moot. I do not think anyone will question either the good faith deletion or an early close to this open AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

done, sorry - got distracted --Versageek 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... and thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh .. suddenly the box times out on attempts to login. Could you have a look? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I still have time-out problems, and the box seems almighty slow (is it the internet traffic that is slow??). Would be great if you could have a look what is going on. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken down XLinkBot, COIBot and LiWa3all the bots. There seems to be something wrong, as if the internet connection is REALLY slow. Maybe a restart of the box is needed? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While the bots are down, I am trying to run a manual script (the one I use for updating chem/drugboxes); it is like a turtle, it thinks long (seconds, minutes) about every line which involves reading from Wikipedia, and edits simply don't get through. I however don't see anything which seems to need a lot of internet traffic running. Any ideas? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My home network is really screwed up.. I'm not sure if my router is starting to fail or if it's something else. I'm working on it. --Versageek 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. answer is depending on the point of view: 'Great', or 'That sucks' (apply the former to that you are working on it, the latter to the failing home network). I hope you can fix it! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you manage to fix it, can you then start all the bots (they should be a good indicator if the network is running reasonably, I had them crashing on not being able to get their settings pages)? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You erased my SAM AND HIS FRIENDS attical. It tells you about the Youtube Web series and Other series it has. And lot of things have pages about youtube like 'The annoying Orange' and I think my Page was okay to have, considering it's going to have More than 40+ episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidsrage (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you declined the speedy deletion of Camp Anokijig?

The camp is a place/location - it arguably doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. --Versageek 17:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit of a specious argument. By that logic, any company that has an address can be considered to be a place/location and thus not be eligible for WP:CSD#A7. A summer camp is a business that provides a service. It should be subject to the same rules of notability as any other business. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the argument is weak, but the article does cover the history of the place since 1926, and mentions (although unreferenced) that it contains one of the largest log structures in Wisconsin. I was giving the author a bit longer to refine it. Some of these long-established camps do have a history which is worth recording in an encyclopedia. If you believe it doesn't belong, feel free to use AfD. You might also want to consider using AfD on a few of the other articles in category Category:Summer camps in Wisconsin . --Versageek 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I had done 3 changes. 1) Tamil font 2) Link to Lyrics page of the songs of the Thirugnanasambandar, 3) Video link

All the the 3 are not reflecting. Request to know the reason and ways to correct to ensure atleast first 2 changes are effected.

Regards

Ambal3du (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On June the 4th 2010 you deleted the page for Natasha O'Keeffe citing the following reasons - (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - Since the release of the groundbreaking drama 'Lipservice' on BBC3 in October I feel it imperative to reinstate the page due to the show's subject matter and significance. Natasha plays one of the lead characters and now has a growing fan base who are interested in following her career. She has also featured in various newspaper and magazine articles including 'The Sun', 'The Times', 'The Guardian' and the'TV Times'. For an example - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/lip-service-groundbreaking-lesbian-drama. Agent link - http://unitedagents.co.uk/natasha-o'keeffe. Many thanks

I noticed when user Special:Contributions/Wâgoshens modified an external link which was reverted by XLinkBot (thankfully it might have been a false positive), XLinkBot was unable to leave a notice on the user's talk page. If anyone else with characters such as "â" in their name makes a bad edit, XLinkBot might not be ready to give a notice. mechamind90 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Ja Kroy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja Kroy (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The bot is making inappropriate edits to The Launderettes article. Specifically, removing content. Additionally, the bot will remove "some" social networking links, but not all. Hope this can be fixed. Thanks, Cindamuse (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on XLinkBot's talk page. --Versageek 21:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

down (bots died, can't access it, does not pong)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be fine now, something on the box was saturating my network (again!).. --Versageek 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the bots? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It is again down .. Saw them leave yesterday evening. I can't get onto the box. Any clue what the problem is? (take care, there are 2 transferbots running, you might want to kill them ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your bots keeps redirecting my edits to Richard Lynn. My links were appropriate for the article. See the talk page for the Richard Lynn article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.37.118 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. Hello. I am the User (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ), blocked, [ ... ]. Requests for Assistance. Thank you very much. 77.86.106.2 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 213.249.239.212 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In general practice, making unexplained major edits on a user page belonging to someone other than yourself is viewed as vandalism - while blanking the user or user_talk pages of an indef-blocked user suggests that you are either editing at the request of that user (see meat puppetry) or are that user editing under a different name (sock puppetry). If User:Badagnani wishes to have his user page blanked, he should make a request on his talk page. --Versageek 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT a Meat-Puppet and NOT a Sock-Puppet for anyone. It is very difficult to deal with "in practice" (UNWRITTEN rules and self-made rules) indeed. It is very difficult to deal with Speculations as well. I DO NOT even know who the User (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Badagnani ) REALLY is. I DO wonder what Planet some are living upon, as I DO find it VERY difficult in having to PROOF my INNOCENCE (of Puppetry). Innocent until PROVEN Guilty anyone?! Is there anything I can possibly do to reverse the Block?!

213.249.239.212 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No Vandalism INTENDED in any case.

213.249.239.212 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My User Name is based upon an English/British National Insurance number [33], [34] )([35] ), an English and a British rough equivalent of the American Social Security Number and of the Canadian Social Insurance Number; now for legal reasons I cannot of course possibly or actually confirm or deny whether that number is actually of mine; but supposing for a moment that I "WERE", in Plural and in Past Tense, a so-called "Sock", i.e., that is that I "WERE", in Plural and in Past Tense, the User (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Badagnani ), how would I somehow get hold of an English and a British National Insurance number, just like that?! DO YOU THINK THAT he is English or not?! DO YOU THINK THAT he is British or not?! These are NOT Questions that I can possibly somehow answer for you.

213.249.239.212 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you blank User:Badagnani ? --Versageek 06:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that I would possibly get a fair hearing anyway and anyhow, but I shall be as polite and as co-operative as I possibly can. First of all it was NOT Vandalism. NO Vandalism was intended. I found it ODD that a Blocked User would somehow be allowed to have his User Page kept, I thought it was a technical or an administrative error of some sort, I thought, WITH GOOD FAITH, that I was doing Wikipedia a Service by removing a Page that was PROBABLY no longer needed.

I DO sincerely hope that an answer by words of more than a single line would still be read.

213.249.239.212 (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<-I understand your frustration at being accused of sockpuppetry. It's unfortunate that your very first edit to Wikipedia was to blank the user page of a user who was involved in numerous disputes, had used sock puppets in the past and who is still the subject of a community ban. I'm still not quite sure how you found my talk page in this matter - as I had nothing to do with the block, but I'm willing to let that go as a curiosity.

I will grant your unblock request under the following circumstances:

1. You need to stop editing as an IP while your account is blocked, this is clearly against the rules and doing this will make it harder for me to justify unblocking your account.
2. You need to note in a new unblock request on the talk page of your account:

• your explanation of why you blanked User:Badagnani. (I see you've done this already)
• that you've been informed that editing as an IP while blocked is against the rules & you will no longer do it.

You should also know that because of your unfortunate first edit, if it turns out that you share editing habits with User:Badagnani, it's likely you will find yourself blocked again. --Versageek 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Versageek,

I created the Textbookstop wikipedia article a couple of days ago, but it was speedily deleted due to A7. I was just wondering if you could provide any suggestions at how the article might comply with Wikipedia's policies? Also, could you please move it to my community page so that I might work on making it better, adding sources, etc?

Thank you very much!

Dblaser (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the MySQL server? can't get linkcounts, no data from db ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Not sure why article on Abbot Rees was deleted by you. He was a major figure in twentieth century church music as well as an authour on spititual matters. Your expertise please in judging these areas? Lindenismyteddy (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Versageek. I see the bots and MySQL are down, could you try and start all? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm about 1400 miles from the server at the moment, so if the box is down entirely - I may not be able to fix it until I get home in a few weeks. --Versageek 21:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)