Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A user named 1007D is wanting to be adopted, so how about you do an adoption program for him at User talk:1007D#Adoption program. You may need to check your Gmail inbox for 1007D's messages first. 71.142.248.37 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1007D is still waiting for you to adopt him. Go to this page. 71.142.248.37 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

He has a response in his email, and you are blocked. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at 1007D's talk page.
Message added 07:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Lam_Kin_Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are behind the sockpuppets blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22. I believe that both users were banned from wikipedia and they are trying to create the impression that "pro-NLP" editors are using sockpuppets. Note that mostly members of the skeptics group were banned during the arbcom workshop: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. Its not easy to prove but if you look at the edit history of Lam_Kin_Keung, he or she only made uncontroversial edits to other article before making controversial edits on the NLP article. The POV and style closely align with the person who was running the HeadleyDown sockpuppets. I would not be surprised if the Irvine22 socks were editing from an anonymous proxy and were just pretending to be pro-NLP to create a straw man. This needs to be investigated more carefully. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello DeltaQuad. 203.198.25.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is requesting to be unblocked from a range block hat you placed on 203.198.25.0/24 on 21 June. You gave the reason as "Block evasion", but I don't know what block was being evaded, so I am unable to assess it. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I usually leave my SPI blocks like that in case the editor decides to make a clean start/become a contributor again. The range you are referring to includes some checkuser confirmed IPs with Instantnood. I would recommend sending them to unblock-en-lwikimedia.org or even better the Account Creation project. I will also try and contact a CU for specific comment on that edit. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend declining this unblock as there are only two edits from that IP, both to put the unblock up, therefore we can't say how it will be used. If the user has an account and wishes to be exempt, s/he can make the request from that talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making American Airlines Flight 191 a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Hi, I had some fun (~8 hours) with your filter 420 (talk page vandalism) today, here's a pointer. –89.204.137.133 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew I would get false positives from it, that's why I limited it's restrictive abilities. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't like it when it happened, because I had no clue what happened, and archiving worked for me this year in another talk namespace. But now that I know it it's no big deal, at least I can blank any nonsense I've written in namespace 1 before somebody answers. Unregistered users being able to archive talk pages is not essential. Maybe it's not desirable, after all you must have had reasons to create the filter. But documenting the fact would be good, something is different, desirable or not. –89.204.153.227 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember the filter correctly, you can still take one action, so if you archived all the sections that you wanted to in one edit I think you can still do that. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I could not add this to the SPI page as I do not have all the info needed. There is an article, Grace Helbig which has repeatedly been speedily deleted (also added as Grace Helbig (DailyGrace). Each time it is added, it is a different editor. As I do not have access to the deleted revisions histories, I thought it might be worthwhile to see if there might be some sockpuppetry going on. Cheers! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 06:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colin84 though looking at the revisions, they contain relatively the same material, but there are differences, so these could be Meatpuppets. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you were involved with the blocking of 1007D (talk · contribs), I thought you would be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1007D. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interested, Thank You! :D -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the sterling work keeping on top of the unblock-en-l list; a painfully slow and painful task that I for one gave up on :) Errant (chat!) 13:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 13:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta, sorry, but i am on vacation, with limited internet access, and i cannot help you right now. Tiping over the phone... Will be back at the end of the month. I didnt know that you will create SPI, sorry.. I think that main account was noted in ARBMAC log. As soon as i am back, i will give my best to help, and list all of those. Sorry again. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your help with my first ACC. (linked removed). I see here that it was blocked. Do I defer the request to Check Users? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Or is the block only for BOTs? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems you have the hang of it now. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ciao! Can you warn user:Daufer to stop blanking his talk page? Thanks.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[excuse the talk page stalking] Please note Wikipedia policy at WP:BLANKING -- Marek 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done No warning required, they have the right. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 18:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I declined an unblock request from an IP within a range you blocked as a checkuserblock. I directed them to the account creation tool, but thought I would notify you anyway just to ensure I am not missing anything here. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He'll be back, unfortunately. Negativecharge (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Requests for Unprotection page says to first ask the admin who put the protection on for assistance. So I'm asking you to unprotect. The edit war, I think, is over, and if it restarts, please take action (note that the opposing editor is edit warring over completely non-controversial data that is required in the page's Infobox, so it's an open and shut case of disruptive editing and warrants a temp ban for User:Night of the Big Wind). Thanks! Jabbsworth (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to unprotect it, I would feel much better though if there was some kind of discussion, thought it's not needed. So I have  unprotected the article in good faith. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the pure and innocent Jabbsworth. For DeltaQuad: as soon as he puts in his POV stuff again I will revert it and ask for another page protection. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, don't worry, i'm not considering a block for you, you were within 3RR. Just stop by here if anyone starts reverting again and I will protect it back up. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on discussion requests for the talkpage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Night of Big Wind has reverted another editor who installed the uncontroversial data into the infobox. Can this be interpreted as anything other than tendentious, disruptive, bloody-minded editing bordering on vandalism? Jabbsworth (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the edit because there is no consensus on the talkpage. Something you see as important at Euthanasia... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys got to be kidding me, well now you have at least two weeks to discuss and I will extend it if you guys can't talk it out. Now talk it out on the TP. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please readd the protection template to this article. I had removed it just today. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh...Thanks for the note, will do. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate, this whole matter. I would have hoped that Night of the Big Wind would respect an uninvolved editor's decision based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and some common sense. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DQ, sorry to bother you, but could you consider placing a longish full protect on suicide bag please? It seems to have become a huge battleground, all of a sudden. Jabbsworth (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First adding a load of blabla and then asking for protection. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, if you don't have anything constructive to say here move along, you had a chance to request page protection also. I suggest you guys find something better to do than edit war with each other too, or I can just start handing out blocks instead of protecting pages for a long period of time. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I restained myself from removing his texts, so I am surprised to see his protection request without an editwar. But I will kick you from my watchlist, no problem. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that in general it's best to deny recognition to trolls, but is there any way to determine whether a trolling account is a sockpuppet of a previously existing user? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It was checked and is a known troll, it was recommended by the CU to nuke it. Contact me via email for further details. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I reported the 4 attacks on WP:AIV [1], if this problem concerned the latest image posted on the talk pages of NYB, Captain Occam, Nawlinwiki and Gogo Dodo. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've e-mailed you about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am having referenced information about a prominent politician repeatedly deleted by individuals whom I believe either work for the politician or are closely connected to him. The site is Robert W. Harrell, Jr.. At least two people, possibly three, although they may be one and the same person, are repeatedly deleting negative information about the individual in question and substituting information that is more suitable for a political campaign. Can you help? --Carolina cotton (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In the meantime you should probally try and discuss this out with the people on the the talkpage. Right now you are actually in violation of the 3 revert rule, but since it looks like you want to talk it out, I won't block you. Give that a try and let me know if you need more help. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 19:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I do not work for Robert W. Harrell, Jr. or any other politician.  However Carolina cotton does work for a political organization in Columbia, SC.  The references he generally relies on are from a political blog (not an official news outlet) and the opinions of the blog are agenda driven, misleading and skewed.  Several media outlets in South Carolina have publically questioned or criticized the factual accuracy of the findings and reports of this political organization and its blog.  I try to reference official government reports and news articles from actual news organizations when I post.  Carolina cotton has used this same tactic on other pages of South Carolina public figures which the political organization he works for targets.  I plan to also clean those blog references up but I began with Robert W. Harrell, Jr.’s page first.  Any assistance or advice you can offer is greatly appreciated. EricJ1995 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look into what you guys were reverting each other on, and I think you both each have some legit sources, and I think you guys should talk it out. If you need protection on other pages, or unprotection for what you guys have decided on then let me know. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 15:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The articles written by my organization's investigative website The Nerve, have appeared in newspapers around the state. We employ three journalists who all worked at mainstream newspapers for many years before joining The Nerve. We don't "target" anyone, but report news on a variety of state-related topics. The information EricJ1995 is deleting is factual, rather than opinion, and has not been disputed. We are attempting to present a balanced view on individuals' Wikipedia sites, rather than having them appear as little more than campaign pages. --Carolina cotton (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite how you sell your political organization and its blog, at the end of the day you are a political opinion blog.  You have your favorite targets and you have your marching orders from your anonymous wealthy donors.  Your posts here are nothing but attempts to insert your blog stories into Wikipedia pages.  Wikipedia is not the proper forum for you to use to promote your blog posts.  It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and its goal of serving as an online encyclopedia reference.  In the future you need to stick to using your political blog to promote your blog posts, not this site.  EricJ1995 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this user Ebe123 has been accepted into the abuse response team, I"ll go ahead and add him to the list of members page and archive the nomination.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And excuse me sir, I am trying on how to archive the nomination on Ebe123 but having trouble. I know I found the archive template but not the whole thing. Thanks. I don't want to screw up the nominations.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)