Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Mail
Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Efanrees
You blocked this editor in October (and quite rightly so). I'm minded to give him another chance now - his first unblock requests were poor, but it sounds like he's beginning to understand. I would keep an eye on his future edits and will quickly reblock if there's any repeat of the problem. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just thought that since you were in the mind to block the IP, Armburst probably deserved one too, after all the material was cited, just perhaps inappropriate. I think I'll keep an eye on the situation, Armbrust says this anon has edited from different IPs in any case so it may all come out in the wash once they reset their router... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no worries. I'll just put it on my ever-increasing watch list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with IP editor
Hi. I really need some administrator-to-administrator advice. Can you offer your opinions on Question 2 - 5 that I've posed at the top of this discussion?
Everyone else participating there is only focusing on Question 1, which I thought would be answered more quickly and straightforwardly, and is already being discussed at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case If you want to offer your insights on Question 1 as well, can you do so there? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal was, and I was considering whether to block both of them, only him on nobody when I saw the AIV update :). I've only been back for a few days and I get the impression we get a lot of "almost bad faith" vandalism reports now :(. -- Luktalk 13:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has done such stuff before, as can be seen from his edit history. He (or she I guess) also calls reversions due to vandalism an 'ethnic slur' presumably against Goths, Visigoths, Vandals etc (I mention this to clarify what the user's statements about ethnic slurs seem to mean)... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing an XfD closure
I've closed an AfD and I feel my decision was not called for. It is okay to reverse my own closure? Thanks. --
I saw this article on this song and was amazed on how expanded it was the last time I saw it. I thank you for your work on it as I'm researching
Billy Squire this infamous video. GamerPro64 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Template problem
I approved your Holden article. I had A LOT of trouble getting to the DYK nom template because the slash in the article title breaks the template. Go to WT:DYK to the nom, click on "review", try to edit, and you'll see what I mean. I only managed to do it after scrolling through your co
ntribs. Moral of the story: slashes are a problem with this template....PumpkinSkytalk 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Me Tonite
FYI, the image size was changed in Rock Me Tonite because it is too big for the section, causing the following History sub-heading to be incorrectly indented. We would appreciate it if you could find a way to have this sub-heading correctly display. Maybe we can just eliminate the sub-heading. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider?
Hey DC, you blocked User:ManawatuNZ today because of user name, and I wonder if you might reconsider. Seems to me she is a keen newbie who could be encouraged, and I would guess the name she chose was simply because she is proudly from Manawatu NZ. Some of her edits so far are borderline, but some are good, and that's par for newbies. Perhaps if you unblocked, and she took note of messages left on her talk page, she would be a good acquisition to wiki. Worth a try? I see Skier Dude deleted User:ManawatuNZ earlier, so I will contact him tomorrow. Moriori (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
For your tireless work to improve and write excellent articles on NRHP sites in New York! Pubdog (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Help, I'm trying to create a new character template, but it won't let me change anything or add anything to a template on my "SandBox." Is there a way to do this?
Hi. It looks as if your e-mail isn't functional, or else I would contact you directly that way. It seems as if you might be a resident of INY, perhaps even a graduate of IHS. I grew up there, and went there, although I no longer live there (but my family is there). If you want to contact me, my email is functional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting Wingard
This member keeps removing "," from airdates and episode counts from
I just asked if the commas were nedded in the episode counts as well. If they are I will put them right back. Please tell me. Got no intention to war again. Pleasw contact me on my talk page ASAP.Wingard (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're going again, telling me not to change before it's uploaded onto a webpage, yet undid my edit then seconds later made the same edit I made. Can we block them again? Obviously their lesson has NOT be learned!
I just asking for it to be done right. When it's been uploded on a webpage it shows it has aured. Please stop adding before that happens. What do you think? I think Days should be uploaded at soaoperafan.com and B & B at CBS before they're added to a template.
Reporting MusicFreak7676 for not listening to my words. Wingard (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soapoperafan.com is NOT a valid source. It doesn't matter if it's updated, it matters if it's AIRED. You undid my edit to DAYS, then re-did it yourself. You're showing
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- TheHelpfulBot 16:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Steam heating (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Back
Musicfreak7676's talk page. Message added 01:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
]
January 2012
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Appears to be trying to set a record for non-utile use of Wikipedia. I have given him what appears to be his 17th "final warning" or thereabouts. I think you were the last admin to block him quite recently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for Walter Merchant House
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel,
I read your justification for removal of my entry. Although I don't agree that the entry is superfluous, I will let it go this time as you feel strongly about it. (Kirovsky (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You seem to have listed a page on a secondary school for CSD as A7. [1]. I assume it was a slip of the mouse, and you intended to put an unreferenced tag on it, so I did that. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Redstone Coke Oven Historic District
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: 173.64.99.252
I'm sorry. Looks like I got so busy I didn't realize it had reached that many reverts. I'll try to be more mindful of that in the future. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me
Daniel, could you revisit User talk:RichardMills65? He says he's blocked. Above my pay scale :) Something about DeltaQuad, and perhaps a proxy block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks-- not sure what I wandered into via a typo, but I'll keep him watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have removed the auto-unblock request from my talk page.
I am sending this message to all the people who have commented on my unblock request at User Talk:12bigbrother12#Caught in an Autoblock. I've removed the request because I have moved back out to university, where I have a different IP address and so am not affected by the block. I will be going back to my old (home) IP address in March where hopefully the situation should have resolved itself. Thank you for taking the time to deal with my request, If for whatever reason I'm not allowed to remove the unblock request I apologise and obviously feel free to revert the edit I made on my talk page. Thanks again. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Real Life Barnstar
Thank you for a great discussion about notability at WP:NYC. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your questions regarding Joseph Paterno bio
Hi Daniel - thanks for responding. More specifically, I have attempted to include a direct quote from one of the Board of Trustee members in regard to the rationale for Paterno's firing given that the article, as it currently stands, has no such first-person commentary. It was initially met with a copyvio rejection, and then with a nuance rejection. I corrected both per the editor's request, yet no one has dealt with the corrections. The quote itself, from Kenneth Frazier, a key player in the Board's decison and CEO of Merck Pharmaceuticals, explains his thinking at the time, and was featured in a front page article on the New York Times. As the article currently stands, there is only an "anonymous" reference to the Board's actions. I have submitted this twice, both times correcting for whatever the "fault" may be, yet still this important historical interview is excluded. (Bagumba, an editor with priveleges to revise, had already said important quotes from the NYT article should be included).
Please let me know why Kenneth Frazier's statement continues to be excluded. Thanks. --AVR2012 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a lot of info missing from NCDC. I'm quite busy IRL right now, but I believe that info should be added before any further steps are taken. Also, there isn't consistency on whether it caused over $1 billion or not. Most sources I find don't include it among the billion dollar U.S. disasters in 2011 (see here or here). I tried finding a damage total, but I couldn't get anything good (just some figures from NCDC). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the way I would've done the article is split all impact by area, but that tends to get rather generic. I'm not really used to (in my hurricane articles) having a separate fatalities section. I think it'd be a bit morbid to go into a lot of detail for each type of death, but I do agree that it's a bit short. In short, I'm not really sure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally limit it to interesting deaths, for ones that I'd go into detail. I think you're on the right track though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
User:Goodbyz's claim in both unblock requests that the threat was not a legal threat within the meaning of WP:legal does not sit easily with me. When Goodbyz appeared at the Gingrich presidential campaign article talk page to advocate for the edit-warring multiple-IP user there (who promptly vanished, and has not reappeared therafter), Goodbyz was at pains to claim that the IP user is "an attorney"[2], and also claimed, at Goodbyz's UTP, that Goodbyz him/herself is the IP's "colleague",[3], i.e. someone with professional legal expertise of some kind. May or may not have a bearing. Writegeist (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Username concern
Hi Daniel Case, thank you for your concern about my username. Well, I wasn't think about Wikipedia's username policy at all. Sure of course, I would change a new username if it does concern you. —
They finally changed my new username and are you happy now? :-) —Sheenmeister (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) Are you going to take the warning above off the page as it's no longer relevant, right? Well, I am telling you the truth, I am still new to Wikipedia. But of course, I am still learning something new around on here. —Sheenmeister (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MSU Interview
Dear Daniel,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
) 09:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry if it seems like i am pushing this idea..
the dravidians came from mesopotamia..a very highly civilized culture whereas the aryans came form a not so civilized culture (that is thousands of years ago)..I am actually deeply concerned as to why this group of people are not mentioned...Tamil is the most refined ancient language in the world..it has contributed to most of the words in sanskrit..most in fact all historians attribute the three major oldest civilizations in india..to the dravidians..not pushing it..apologies if i seem to do that..also dravidians are not just found in the south of india..they are found all over...but of course esp..in the south..as daniel pointed out..i need references..so i will do that... its like the western number system..which is being taught of as having originated in the middle east..but actually the indians in india invented the numbers...no big deal beacause they are similar people anyway..algebra..pie formula..sine cosine ..all come from India..bbc documentaries..
but i agree with Daniel..need to get references..otherwise it would be tragic..if we can only mention these three civilizations without mentioning the originators of them..Angkoe wat and other temples in thailand..built by dravidians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
Hello. Yesterday you blocked 76.15.47.9(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) for which many thanks. Sadly they have returned to the exact same editing pattern. I thought I would let you know that this looks to be yet another IP used by the long term vandal that we have been keeping tabs on here User:Doc9871/Voice Cast Vandal. I don't know when you will get to see this so there may not be any need for new action but I thought I'd make you aware of these things. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note and the block. I know that, like so many other editors, I wish that we could just wave a magic wand and the damage to articles would stop. That, of course, will never happen so, like Sisyphus, we just have to keep working uphill and doing what we can. Thanks for adding your shoulder to the boulder. MarnetteD | Talk 03:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes, thank you again, Daniel - and thank you MarnetteD! I was going to tag that one after I saw you on the trail a couple of days ago, and I got as far as making some reverts, but I got... distracted by other things. Long story ;> Nothing is ever going to get through to this vandal, and the efforts by you, Daniel and many others to revert and block this joker only reinforce to me that there are some damned good editors here who care enough about the accuracy of WP to never let garbage like the VCV tries to pull off get through. Thank you both again! Doctalk 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Block is over and, sadly, same disruptive editing has resumed. At least they aren't IP hopping at the moment. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, DC. Block ended and same disruptive editing resumed. I do appreciate you taking care of this and I hope you have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action and, of course, I meant good not gooey :-) MarnetteD | Talk 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Grey article: Sock puppetry and edit warring
Hi, Daniel. After I reverted what I thought was a bad edit to the Jennifer Grey article by an anonymous IP editor, the article was reverted by that and three other IPs, all of which are traced to the same area in Ireland, and all of which made the identical revert to the article. When I blocked the most recent of those IPs, an editor with a username account, whom I believe to the one and the same, again made the same edit, and I decided not to revert the article to the version I thought was appropriate, and tried to try engage him in discussion, since he has a username, and might have a valid point of view. But aside from one brief message, he did not engage me in discussion, and after weeks of not hearing from him, I reverted the article. He has now reverted it again. I have left one final message on his talk page asking if he will continue the discussion. If he does not respond within a reasonable amount of time, I will revert the article, and if he reverts it yet again I believe he will need to be blocked from an uninvolved admin. Will you step in if you contact you at that point? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that 3RR refers to edits made within a 24-hour period. He certainly did this on January 25 from his IPs, but not recently. Putting aside the fact that I don't know if someone will block an editor for violating 3RR if the edits were made from different accounts or IPs, I don't know if they'll do so so long after the fact, since they'll just argue that he hasn't done it since then.
I know this, because (in answer to your other question), I didopen up an SPI case. And the editor who responded decided to take no action because, as he clueless noted, "The nonblocked IPs are quiet now." Apparently the fact that they went silent because the guy signed in to his username account, and because I stopped reverting in an attempt to engage him in discussion, either didn't dawn on him, or he doesn't care. And thus, yet another troublemaker who thinks he owns Wikipedia is allowed through the revolving door of Wikipedia's administrative incompetence. Nightscream (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Daniel the whole reason I contacted you was that if blocking became necessary, I would've needed an uninvolved admin to do so, something difficult to do, since I don't always know who will respond or be willing to intervene. Now, between offering your own opinion on the matter, and reverting, doesn't that mean you're no longer uninvolved? Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you insist that that's kosher, that's cool. Thanks for your help, Daniel. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted the article again. Please block him. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary, when applicable, for the opening sentence of BLP articles, especially those of entertainers, to begin with some version of "(Person) (born dob) is an American actress best known for her roles in...." The fact of the matter is, Cerenok is still revering the opening sentence of the Lead, and is still doing so without engaging in discussion. His reverts may be partially different, but isn't it a bit overly technical, and possibly hair-splitting, to argue that just because he has slightly changed the content of his reverts, that his behavior is not being intentionally disruptive? If he has a genuine belief that there's something wrong with the the wording, why not engage in discussion, as a good faith, if only to say something along the lines of "Um, okay, I won't put in Reckless any more, but can we talk about the precise wording of the opening sentence?" Look at his edit waring. Look at his sock puppetry. Does this come across as someone whose genuine intent is one collaboration and improvement? He's already engaged in sock puppetry, edit-warring and
WP:OWN-type behavior, and the slight change in his most recent reverts hardly suggests that he has turned over a new leaf. If we have to regard each variance in reverts as a distinct, separate discussion, does that mean I have to leave yet another message on his talk page that he will ignore, and then wait another couple of weeks before I conclude that "Hey, maybe he's not going to respond to me." C'mon. Let's stop bending over backwards for people like this. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
Happy Valentine's Day Daniel! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it!
SarahStierch (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Urban blight
Made me think of the request for a photo of urban blight in the Clinton Historic District a while ago. Not sure what the question (answer?) was yet: [4]. In my defense, I didn't really venture very far off of Clinton Ave, for somewhat obvious reasons...
BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Chip123456
See my post just now at
User_talk:Bwilkins#Seven_day_block_.3D_seven_unblocking_requests. I think it is a positive suggestion on a way forward for this troublesome child. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
User 121.217.15.206
Thank you for blocking that user. Their block ended quite recently, and unfortunately they have gone straight back to including nonsense in articles again. And once again, I am positive it is the same person, especially when you compare their edits. [5][6][7]CBFan (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream
I've been reading your comments with Nightscream concerning events at Jennifer Grey.
Please also see my talk page.
I would please like your thoughts on this.
Thank you. - jc37 22:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Redstone Inn
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mgrē@sŏn 00:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I have one more question for you. Mgrē@sŏn 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ramathibodi Hospital
Could you do me a favor? On 14 February, you blocked
WP:EL. Could you take a look at the edits, and, if you think I'm right, semi-protect the pages? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
I know you blocked PRProgRock recently, but he evaded the block and he is using an IP right now. Superghost987 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Username block
On 28 February, you unblockedAtab.ro (talk·contribs) to allow them to request a username change. However, as of 1 March, the user is still editing Tabula Association, the association with which the username is associated and for which he was blocked. Since the user did not use the unblock opportunity to request a new username, perhaps a more stringent permanent block is in order? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Redstone Historic District (Colorado)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I noticed that you have reviewed my self-nomination of Gilles (stock character) (February 21), for which I thank you very much. Unfortunately, I've also noticed an error in my hook ("two centuries" should read "three centuries"). I have tried to figure out how to fix this, but with no success. Is there a way it can be corrected before it's "published" (assuming it will be)? Sorry for the bother; I'm grateful for whatever help you can suggest. Beebuk 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need Some Assistance
Hi, perhaps you can help. I am having a problem with a user, User:Tvtonightokc, who is adding unverified, unencyclopedic, and unsourced content to numerous television station pages. The content in question is what newscasts called themselves over the years. For example, "NewsChannel 4", Channel 4 Eyewitness News" and so on. The content as been deemed unverified, unencyclopedic, and unsourced by a discussion and consensus, yet the user continues to add the information. I have asked, via his talk page and mine, to stop, but he literally posted to my talk page and the content in question. I have issued a manual final warning, but need an admin to step in before I go to AIV for vandalism. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The last edit of this kind was on 2/29, but this is an ongoing cycle of edits from this user, it isn't likely to stop after a couple days "break". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right: I had no idea how to (or if I could) edit the template itself. Merci mille fois. And, thanks, too, for adding the article to the other projects. I'll look into the Belgium connection; it sounds as if it's a go. Beebuk 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the
engagement strategy
, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compound en dashes
The en dash section of the MOS was changed sometime in mid-2011, requiring all en dashes that are part of compounds (like "New York–Pennsylvania") to be unspaced. (For what it's worth, this change happened during my hiatus last year, so I didn't know about it until very recently.) – TMF 04:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, spacing en dashes if one or more of the components had a space was the standard until the aforementioned change last year. – TMF 05:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I skimmed through all of the discussion, but it got twisted and tiring after a while, so I ultimately just skipped to the final summaries to see exactly what happened. As for when to use spacing now, I believe it's now limited to cases where the en dash is connecting dates, numerical figures, or other things along those lines, and even that has some different criteria which the MOS page does a decent job of breaking down. Things like "New York–New Jersey" are still unspaced according to the MOS, though (see "En dashes: other uses" section 2, bullet 1, example 3). – TMF 05:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block on DobbsheadVenerator
First off, thanks for the prompt block! [8] That being said, you cite him as a potential sock of
List of surviving veterans of World War I article and its talk page, many of them with equally bizarre usernames. Do you have any recommendations as to how I should further proceed, especially how one amends or reopens a sock investigation? Ravenswing 07:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for W. B. Thompson Mansion
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, would you be kind enough to delete my half-completed application for Angela of the Cross to be in DYK. I can't make head or tail of the Bot request to complete section 3. Apologies that you have to deal with an idiot. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK application
David,
Thank you that would be very helpful. I did have a tiny problem with an image(from the Spanish commons) for which I had made a reference in the text. I'd be happy to scrub the image and delete the reference in the text if that makes life easier for you. You're a diamond. thanks Richard Avery (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, you are exceedingly kind. best wishes Richard Avery (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Article
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, I feel like a rat abandoning the ship, but since I started this review a couple of things have happened that have indicated to me that I should not be reviewing. I left a note to that affect on the template and hopefully someone else will take it from here. Take Care--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Block question
Hello, I do not believe the block that you placed on
WP:3RR, particularly when the other person was repeatedly mischaracterizing an edit as vandalism and misusing rollback. Would you mind making things fairer (either block nobody or block both)? Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello Reaper, please see also my reaction on my talkpage. Hereby I also want to apologize to the user Jmsager which was blocked by my fault. I agree with Reaper above, that the user should be unblocked. Also, I admit, which I already said on my talkpage, that I made some bad reverts resulting in a unnecessary block. --Wiki13 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:AIV. Since it was reported to the latter, I evaluated it through that lens. All I can say to Wiki13 is to consider that distinction next time.
I will not unblock but neither will I object to another administrator choosing to lift this block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I do agree that Jmsager's edits are not exempt from
WP:HD in the future rather than edit warring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, OK, given that Wiki13 has been appropriately penitent above, I will, as they say, reduce to time served. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intervention against harassment on my behalf. Well, I bet there is a Wikipedia policy against me thanking you; something that states the potential conspirators and such ... but even if it exists, screw it. I believe you did a good deed and at least deserve a thanks.
Hi. When you recently edited Lloyd L. Gaines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Great work on these. Savidan 05:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback: Nils von Barth, DYK for Kaytek the Wizard
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I see; I wasn't paying close enough attention (in any event we would have told him to request unblock under the other template). I have asked Circeus if Arealprize is the user the rangeblock's meant for. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am planning to create the article shortly. My modus operandi is to redlink an article prior to creation, or if a subject is obviously worthy of an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of such a practice. I was not aware it was WP policy to disallow redlinks. how else can people be alerted to the need for new articles? Mind you, i have myself removed redlinks, but usually for, say the 5th alternate drummer for an indie pop band with one album released.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance
I figured the best way to address this issue is to contact an administrator.
Hope Brady. If the community decides to keep Arjo's wrong edits, then I won't argue. But I feel as though I'm being attacked based on trying to make things as verifiable and correct as possible. I understand this may fall under the heading of content dispute, but I just wanted your thoughts. Thanks for your time. Rm994 (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sock Puppet Account!
I have found a user, who's been blocked, returning under a new name making the same exact edits they once made. And they aren't even trying to hide it.
They're still doing it, plus another user on the cast members page is adding random linking that makes no sense. I've warned them and I know they won't stop!
Thankyou for your assistance with the school blocking issue, I have completed the edit that I was trying to make when the issue arose. Thankyou again... NotinREALITY 03:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Lloyd L. Gaines, so you may want to ask some one to try to add it to the cue by your date desired. Also, if you have any other DYKs you ever want reviewed, just give me a poke. --LauraHale (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on the changes. Let me know when your nomination is up. I'm trying to stockpile around 60 reviews as I have about 20 softball players and 40 field hockey players I want to nominate. (Hence my grumpiness over QPQ. I could get some one to nominate all 60 articles for DYK and no one would have to QPQ if that was done for me.) So yeah, happy to do DYK reviews. If I'm awake, at a computer and not working on my dissertation, I can probably review quickly. (Though it took about 20 minutes of reading the Gaines article because of the neutrality check.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Lloyd L. Gaines
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. I fear I need yer help. Some ominous User "Iry-Hor" has started to change articles such as
Raneb without giving any sources. Could you please keep an eye on that guy and the articles and eventually interfere? I don´t want any trouble. Cheers;--Nephiliskos (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
List of common misconceptions: Reagan in Casablanca
Hi there,
appreciate your effort in adding the information about Ronald Reagan being considered for Casablanca to the List of common misconceptions. However, over on that page we have introduced a rather strict set of inclusion criteria as the only way to keep all sorts of "common misconceptions" that aren't really all that common from clogging up the page. The Reagan entry you added is sourced to a book, so it is difficult to check if all criteria are fulfilled for those of us who do not own the book. I am sure people would accept a quote from the book. I have encouraged you to provide such a quote on Talk:List of common misconceptions. The relevant criteria for this particular item would be the second half of criterion two:
"2-The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception".
And perhaps also criterion four may come in to play:
"4-The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete."
Thanks for sorting out the sockpuppet thing, but.....
I think I have found the sockpuppeter. [[9]]. I've attempted to report the user. CBFan (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
nominate
) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Familiar with seeing you writing DYKs on historic sites, but I was quite surprised to see you active in maritime law. Do you have any clue why the shark fins were named as a party rather than the owners of the fishing vessel? If any of the sources explained why, I missed it. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Don't know how, but I completely missed the bit you quoted when I looked through the article. I can't remember ever encountering the name of an in rem case before, so this was quite the surprise. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TB
Sven Manguard's talk page. Message added 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
Thanks very much for the my first Barnstar for creating the Shark Finning Prohibition Act page. Yes, its absence was glaring, and it was right up my alley, being a fan of both the law and of environment/conservation issues. Also, I see that you live/lived in the Hudson Valley... I was born and raised in Wappingers Falls, and, having grown up travelling all along U.S. Route 9 in New York, was thrilled to see the quality of that page! Kudos! Grolltech (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user keeps stealing/editing people's sandbox pages and moving them to actual pages without permission. They've been warned repeatedly by myself and they keep ignoring them. Please stop them. And I believe there is an IP that is the same user!!
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Daniel! German Wikipedia states that one of the reasons for doing perp walks is to break the suspect's pride and to facilitate getting confessions, and that these reasons would have been acknowledged by authorities. I can't find such statements in the English article. Is German Wikipedia correct? --Eike sauer (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your fast and helpful response! --Eike sauer (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
DR goes to Wikimania! 01:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
207.28.45.254
[10] It was only autoblocked, probably due to User:Jahasnen. I've taken it out for another year. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria
.
If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the
non-free fair use in
|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for handling this quickly and efficiently. I assure you I will only use it for quality, rule abiding editing. Opakapaka (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)
The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!
I'm just being a friendly neighborhood stalker gnome. I'll be happy to help with any minutiae if you decide to write up that Act's article. Circéus (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:118.137.73.76
Thanks for stopping this user. I can't believe that the Indonesia NBC/anime misinformation vandal had flown under the radar and struck again. I hope you know his MO by now.
I don't know.... The vandal last struck in January, according to my list, using 180.243.229.15. At the very least, 118.137.0.0/17 can be blocked for another 4 to 6 months because of the long record in its block log alone, although I'm not sure which range 118.137.73.76 belongs. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 21:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vandal who has been hitting Wikipedia repeatedly for several years now (adding shows to NBC's lineup for no known reason, not responding to talk page messages, etc.). Could you please extend the block you made?—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see Nanami has already mentioned this to you. Merging sections.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: IP block exemption: thanks!
Thanks for the IP block exemption, it's useful to me since I use remote desktop to my server to surf the web at fast speeds! --VittGam 15:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sry bt tht :> and thanks for the 'star. If you have any idea how to expand this article further, please go ahead, I couldn't find much beyond what I wrote that would fit the article. And now, I am curious what will you choose for your 500-ed dyk? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your review of the article. I must confess I thought it had a few issues, but it looks like it still needs quite a lot of work. I'll make a start over the weekend with the things you've mentioned, but if you can do a more in-depth edit that would be fantastic. As regards the Washington Post, I think that would be very useful, and I've found an interesting review here which I'll factor into the text. I also like the idea of separating the British and American reviewers as that could provide a better structure for the section. Thanks once again for the comments.
Hi again. I've been offline for a couple of days so apologies for the delayed reply. That sounds great. I look forward to reading your thoughts. Cheers
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you recently blocked User:Joker j1993 for adding in member "positions" to K-pop articles, and I believe that Lowjoe89 might be a reincarnation (based on only one edit, but still... same format and everything). I left a note on his talk page, but I wanted to bring it to your attention in case the account needs to be blocked. Thanks, ClayClayClay 06:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A thread at WP:AN made me wonder — is there an oversight log that oversighters can see? Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; the thread in question was "A bit confused here", in which someone was unaware that there was any sort of log at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Broadway–Livingston Avenue Historic District
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
i request that you put orange boxes around bolck messages
why don't you put orange boxes around block notices? since it is common practice now to do so. why didn't you do that in User talk:70.133.157.30? - just asking.
also - this talk page is long. how about an archive? Jawadreventon (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you help me fix the image? I've been attempting to fix the image, but my changes won't appear when I click "show preview". Thanks, SwisterTwistertalk 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel. Thanks for all the work you've done on this. I've just read through it and think it is excellent. I'll check through it again in the next couple of days then put it forward for FAC and see how it goes. Thanks again.
I'm pretty sure 64.228.156.103 is the same person with the vandalism of the same page and close location. A Personಠ_ಠ 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you extend for a few weeks the block of 64.228.156.103 (talk·contribs)? This person has been trolling Wikipedia for years, and considering this, this user shouldn't edit. Even his/her talkpage access, in most of his/her IPs, has been removed. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 04:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Glenview Mansion
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYK for Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Would you consider extending your block of 64.228.156.103(talk·contribs·WHOIS) to his talk page? He keeps editing the warning comment to change its meaning. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent IP block
Hi Daniel! You recently blocked the account Nemrs (which is fine by the way), at the same time you blocked his IP address. Unfortunately it is the address for ATT 3G wireless for the Capital square area in downtown Madson, WI. I and several people I know use IPads to edit and are unable to easily log on. I am now huddling at Starbucks. Is there anything that can be done? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two IPs are STILL removing sources with no valid reason, and continuing to change things without sourcing and I'm tired of warning them. Can you block them again for a longer time?
I debated coming to you as I'm viewed as using you as my "daddy" but I want my talk page protected from IPs coming on it to post on it. I have an IP, who keeps changing, re-adding their opinion and judging me without even knowing me. And I find it completely offensive and really deters me from even using Wikipedia in future use. It's obvious someone attacking me for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Hello. I'm addressing you based on the listing in Wikipedia:Translators_available#Russian-to-English. May I kindly request you to confirm that Russian references for this material do include multiple independent secondary sources (in particular, articles in wide-spread IT-news publications). Thank you in advance. -- Nazar (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gavin Smith (film studio executive)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I thought you might like to know that this user, who you blocked for 24 hours yesterday, has returned and is making exactly the same edits that got him blocked the first time. ---
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page. Message added 21:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
MoS vandal
108.17.143.206(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) Insists on capitalising second and subsequent genres in infoboxes and changing dates in non-US articles to US format, among other things. He's has numerous warnings posted on his talk page, but he persists. Can you, uh, talk to him or something? Thanks. Radiopathy•talk• 03:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarities...
I just noticed some interesting similarities between the following IP addresses:
Hi. I have re-written that article with good literature and I hope you enjoy reading. Greetz;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Sphere before Sept 11.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
Hi. I've currently got 13 articles on DYK at the moment that are unreviewed. Any chance you could help clear my personal backlog and review one or two of them? :) Would be happy to return the favour if you have any unreviewed DYKs you want reviewed. --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP has gone right back to its disruptive editing
Hello DC. On June 3rd you blocked 90.195.244.166(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) Unfortunately they have gone right back to the same editing including adding flags to infoboxes - breaking templates - etc. They never respond to messages on their talk page so I don't know how we can get them to change. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Please go back and look. There's still two paragraphs need referencing. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your name
This is probably not the first time you've heard this, but I'm known for old stuff anyway: it occurred to me that anytime you perform an administrative action that involves putting an end to some discussion, you could truthfully say, "Case closed!" :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is continuing to edit after the block expired. A longer block may be required. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has returned with identical behavior for which he/she was blocked for previously. Thank you. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Arbor Hill Historic District–Ten Broeck Triangle
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! Thanks for taking time to review the Template:Did you know nominations/List of Croatian counties by GDP. I noticed the review as the template is on my watchlist, but I also noticed that you placed the review above the uppermost line of code available for reviews causing the review not to appear actually in the template. I'd move it down myself, but then it would appear as if I did the review, so could you please fix that? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Excellent work at
WP:UAA. You always manage to get through the backlogs! Chip123456 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
I used a vandalism-fighting tool to report the user (can't remember which one; Twinkle?); it has the option "promotion-only account". It automatically created the entry, so I was not able to read it. I will be more careful next time. What is the policy on such obvious spam-only accounts that have no intention of ever editing productively? Do they just stay in the user database? Does anybody ever clean them up? Where should I report them (assuming that I should)? Thanks. Nczempin (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. There is a separate noticeboard for spam accounts,
WP:WPSPAM. And don't worry; you're hardly the only person to have been tripped up by Twinkle or Huggle that way. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
Just thought you should know that longform.org selected the article
Metafilter thread where people are talking about the park, the article, and longform's selection of it. Congratulations! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said to IvoShandor yesterday, "Wow". This sort of high praise from outside for an article is always the best compliment I get ... even better than a barnstar. I am flattered by some of the compliments on the MF thread: "''the crafting of the Wikipedia article really is rather outstanding. It balances citations with readability very well, and doesn't venture too far into either dryness or minutiae." That's exactly what was trying to do, and it's beyond nice when someone picks up on it. Granted, the Weird NJ article gave me a lot to work with, but it still had to be worked with.
I guess because I grew up with this (actually, I didn't realize how dangerous the place had been until I read the article, years later, even though I had been there once and didn't see anyone get hurt (although I stayed off some of the rides because it was obvious to me that there was some potential for serious injury), it's hard to realize just how unbelievable this sounds to people who've never heard of it, particularly from outside the tri-state area. For a lot of them, their first point of contact has been this article ... and because of the way it's written, it has almost become part of the Action Park lore itself. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the night of Thursday 12 July in DC at the Newseum near the Wikimania conference, Consumer Reports and the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium are hosting a social event and a panel on health information and Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to attend. Please RSVP here if you want to attend either or both the social event or the panel. It was nice meeting you at the Wikimedia NYC election. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
The barnstar was unexpected, and very much appreciated. Coming from an editor with such an impressive resume of awards and recognized contributions makes it even more of an honor. Thanks again for noticing. – Lionel(talk) 22:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry for what my brother said about user:Koumz
I am very very sorry for what my younger brother Evan said about Koumz. He is passionate about fish and does not like being corrected. He has bi-polar disorder and asperger's syndrome. I hope you can forgive him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyotoMiyazaki (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Perry Mason moment
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The latest 109. IPs are him[12]. Would you consider blocking the whole range as he seems to be the only who's using it?--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through
WikiProject Resource Exchange
).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at [email protected]. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Riverkeeper logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
I should have stated more about this user. This user has only one edits, which is used to contest deletion of Appktm, created by the user of the same name User:Appktm. So I think it's a sockpuppet and should be blocked. You can request help from a checkuser if needed. Thank in advance. (btw, could you please semi-protect my user page indefinitely with sysop only move protection) --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Perry Mason moment
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You are very welcome - thanks for the kind words on the TFA too. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been mentioned in an article on Slate.com
Check this out -- your User page is linked to in the article. Search for the text "one guy advocating", and have a good chuckle. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucratship
Hi Daniel, have you thought about running for bureaucratship? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might help have have a look at
WT:RFA#Backlog for some background info. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
Absolutely - that's why I left it. The sequence and the timing is what made me laugh. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Smuggler Mine
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am happy to award this special barnstar to you on the occasion of your 501st DYK. Your 500th was a wonderful hook, like a visual fugue, and as you embark on your second 500, a barnstar is in order. Of course, in addition to your impressive DYK work, your contributions in many other areas are also greatly appreciated! MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Real Life Barnstar
Just read this email - you have no idea how much it cheered me up after a long flight :). I'm really glad people found the session so productive; I'm thinking of holding a longer one next year as a dedicated thing, since the format seems to work really well. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page. Message added 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
WP:CSD#G1 criterion specifically excludes user pages from deletion. Should pages such as this just be blanked (not as nonsense, but as excessive unrelated content), or should they be nominated at WP:Miscellany for deletion? Peter E. James (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
Message received. The Newburgh Free Library's "Local History Room" is supposed to be quite good by reputation, though I've never been there. (I don't live in Newburgh, but I know people who do.)
". . .or rewrite it entirely with the help of the materials there. If you have the time to do so, go ahead." Since I read that you're an administrator and I have a chance to catch your ear, I have a some comments:
About adding to articles, I've don't do more than the occasional typo corrections and maybe add a sentence now and then. I'm just not smart enough to do more nor do I have the time to try to figure out how to do more. The one time I did a little more, I completely screwed the page up, though I still don't understand how it happened. It was extremely embarrassing.
WP on the editor side is so very difficult to navigate. I wanted to upload a photo once, but after searching the site for over an hour to find out how, I gave up. The how-to instructions are tough to find if you don't already know what the pages are called or can successfully leap-frog from one topic to another until you land on the information you're looking for. I frequently am not lucky enough to find that method fruitful. Amazingly, the search function doesn't find the info on a page, only the title! If you really want to do something to improve WP, start an initiative to streamline and clean up the learning curve on the site. Make searching easier. Strip away what seems like infinite layers of minutia. (Even if I eventually find the correct topic page I'm looking for, there are never-ending and self-referential links to read through. It's a mind-spinning labyrinth.) WP is definitely not new-user-friendly.
What adds to the confusion is the LIBERAL use of acronyms and jargon. Stopping to follow links to definitions really bogs one down. All terms should be defined when first used, then subsequent references can be jargonized. That is the expected norm in any "real" article.
In the area of inter-editor relationships, encourage people to avoid those snarky comments that so-called editors love to give each other. One example is the type of talk page reply in the bitter spirit of, "Why didn't you look at this long-ago filed away tiny bit of archived spouting from 9-3/4 years ago so you'd know the answer to your pathetic question, huh?". The site has that "be bold" policy, but I read over and over on articles' talk pages where people get extremely upset when their articles are altered in the least without exhaustive consensus discussions first. It sounds wearying; who would anyone want to get involved with that?
The "Kate Middleton's Dress" momentum will become another failed attempt to get more women to contribute without changing fundamentally the way the site works in order to align more closely with how women think. And I don't mean just increasing the range of article topics that appeal to women. I bet women approach searching differently than men; I'm sure that I do. I know that many computer programs and websites just don't work the way I think and I'm not alone in that. In the sphere of working with others, women generally prefer a warm spirit of cooperation rather than the rancor that occurs on so many article talk pages.
Last of all, I don't have the background in grammar, spelling, writing, vocabulary, logic, etc, that editors need. It's a personal shortcoming, I know.
Hey, you asked!
Addendum 1: I just realized that I never actually posted my comment on the history of Newburgh since I was distracted by the "mail" banner and got involved with replying to you. I just posted it.
Addendum 2: I have the sinking feeling that I've just wasted a lot of time with all this typing. I fear that I'm talking about my Wikipedia gender problems to someone predisposed to depreciate them.
I looked up "WP:Kate Middleton's Dress" and see that you were very involved on the -delete- side of the debate for the article. It seems to me that what you all failed to realize was that, beyond interest in the design/needle arts/textile/wedding/fashion design/fashion industry/fashion trends/royal watching/self expression aspects, there is an emblematic aspect that transcends. I don't particularly care about frothy wedding dresses on their own one way or another. (I didn't wear one when I got married.) But this is not just a wedding dress that will hung in the back of Kate's closet until it rots off the hanger like the usual dress. It's an emblem of so much more in our culture. That includes the self-image and confidence of a woman that was thrust into the limelight and bore it well (compare and contrast that to the insecurity and fear of Diana Spencer, tragically thrust into history). Like every wedding dress to one extent or another, it is representative of the hopes and dreams of the couple. In this case, that extends beyond that to those of a nation, a continent, a globe hungry for positives. Diana's mess of a dress was representative foreshadowing of how that marriage would end. You brought up the wedding cake several times as though that were a reason to deny the symbolism of a wedding gown. Do you seriously think that, as beautiful and as delicious as a cake can be, after it's consumed and washed from the plates, that it rises to the symbolism of a wedding gown, let alone one with the import of this one?
To bring this topic down to a much more pedestrian level, have you any idea just how much money the wedding magazine industry generates all by itself? There can be little debate that this is a topic of great interest to many people, a good percentage of them women.
If editors now accept more gender differences in WP topics, there should be an article on the Kate Middleton's Dress debate itself, if it isn't already there. Here's a Slate blogpost to get you started, though since you're quoted in it, it might make you too close to the subject ---
"How Kate Middleton’s Wedding Gown Demonstrates Wikipedia’s Woman Problem": http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/13/kate_middleton_s_wedding_gown_and_wikipedia_s_gender_gap_.html
Pfew, your talkpage is huge! Maybe it is time for a new archive. Anyways, I was looking at Trichuris trichiura's talkpage, and I wanted to point out that Trichuris is not following
WP:CLEANSTART. That page says: "A genuine clean start is not considered improper. However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account". The editing by this account is disruptive and the account has been editwarring and it has been involved in disputes (most likely a continuation of older disputes with his old account). Arcandam (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
I find this wiki editorial (and block) process confusing and disconcerting. Your involvement, tone, and dismissiveness adds to this all the more. Did you really take the time to consider the substance of the matter at hand? The facts seem to make clear that a small group of contributors sits in control over a body of content that regards a living person, and that it is not disposed to change that content even in response to constructive argument (initial proposed changes on 14 July, first reversion being by others to maintain status quo, no discussion of actual proposed content change until at/after the block on the 22nd, deletions of any proposed changes without discussion, etc.). Bottom line, I think current content is inaccurate and has a negative slant; reverting to this short form without any flexibility and engagement regarding points made for the proposed changes suggests bias on the past of the contributors controlling the text. In such a case, what is the best recourse within the rules of the system? Meduban (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the ISBN of the original paperback. I may have incorrectly substituted the "978" prefix for such an old one (basically, it's old enough that you can only find it on the inside). If not, I think we can use the ISBN of the current paperback run. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nine pages of editions in worldcat; 23 versions in gbooks. And none of them match. And this is on the wrong fucking page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion in one place. I've added "original paperback". As I said on my page to Crisco, there are a lot of editions of this book, and I'm not going to blindly pick an edition; the various editions have different pagination and that would corrupt the page references you used. I've got more tabs open than fit and I'm not seeing any editions that seem a plausible typo. I'm not seeing any "978" in what you added, either. Maybe check you copy, again? I know that typos get printed, but not that often. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Adrienne Bolland
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Daniel. If your username isn't in conflict on other project, I think it's better to join them into a global account. Go to Preference -> Manage your global account. Thank you--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks
Thankyou for exemting me from the school block, I really appreaciate it. Thanks
Danjel101 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message alert
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at Skol fir's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page. Message added 08:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi Daniel. I'm considering unblocking this guy per
WP:ROPE; his unblock request and guarantee to "contribute according to the rules here, especially content with source" seem acceptable to me. However, I wanted to run it by you first, in case you're genuiniely opposed to letting hm loose again. Any opinion either way? Cheers, Yunshui雲水 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Daniel, I see that this editor is blocked by you as a spamusername; his transgression appears to be edit warring, which was possibly due to ignorance; certainly his edits, while not wikipedic, were not offensive. His name, while it carries religious overtones, is not IMHO forbidden. I would support unblock unless there is something which there is something I am not seing?--
The editor was blocked for edit warring and plans to continue editing in the same area. Maybe a restrictive unblock where he can't edit religious articles for a month or so would be appropriate. That way, he can learn Wikipedia's policies in an area where he doesn't have a strong bias. {{2nd chance}} might be a solution as well. RyanVesey 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the unblock for now and offered a {{2nd chance}}, we'll see what he does with it. Yunshui雲水 13:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my talk page from Daniel noted; support for unblock retraced. --
The unblock request that is. Arcandam (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no problem with the block nor the declined unblock, but it's unclear to me what TT is blocked for. If T. Canens has verified sockedness based on privileged technical data, than that's that. If it's for disruptive editing I'm inclined to engage in a dialog with the editor, because despite their past behavior I'm hopeful that, if properly engaged, it's possible they could become a productive editor.
Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
User:WigglesWorld forged your name to a nonsense post in Talk:Christmas (since rolled back). He/she was a self-proclaimed sockpuppet (they didn't say of whom), and has been blocked as a vandalism-only account. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's one crackpot pushing something they made up one day. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aliyamustafina
FWIW she may have been editing for a year, but do make note of the fact that she has never communicated on wiki either on a user talk or article talk page. Nor does she respond to requests she actually use sources or edit summaries. And you may AGF, but right now the real Mustafina is competing in the Olympics and I promise she is not wasting time making sure the templates are right on English Wikipedia. As this is a BLP matter, I do hope you don't wait too terribly long for a response. Ultra Venia (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
Thoughts on the request at
User talk:Vpwrestling? I could go either way.--Chaser (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This is regarding a key part of the upcoming WLM-US photo contest. Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
recent action at AIV
Hi, and thanks for your work at AIV. You might want to look at this diff in regard to your recent action to warn IP user 188.10.99.4. Apparently, the reporter is none too clear on what is vandalism, along with not knowing what to do about it. Thanks.
This user has been active again. I've blocked him again but thought I'd let you know as you left a message on the IP talk page about suspected sockpuppetry--5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Daniel. What's your take on usernames like this [14], in which the name matches the nom de plume of an individual artist? A promotional violation? Or is it sufficiently tied to an individual? "Lady Gaga" might be another example. NTox · talk 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in. Funny how intellectual an issue like usernames can be. NTox · talk 15:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Filter-caught or deleted edits
Coincidentally, I also noticed your recent comments at the noticeboard. I have no serious issues with them, but a question: it was my understanding that the notion of requiring promotional activity on a promo-name as a requisite to blocks are a way of assessing the editor's intentions / patterned behavior so as to determine whether a warning or a block is the best course of action on that promotional name. i.e., if the editor has been constructive, a warning to change the name is the tactful / ideal option, whereas if they have been promotional / disruptive a block (soft or hard) is advised. I had thought that whether an edit has been deleted or caught by a computer filter would be irrelevant in this respect; i.e., in assessing the user's patterned behavior. After all, reversions that show up as public edits have too been caught by a 'filter' of sorts (a human filter). Am I misguided? Thanks for reading. NTox · talk 15:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the comments in question: [15][16]. NTox · talk 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the timeliness of your reply. Thanks for getting back to me. I suppose it is, then, a personal judgement. I had asked because I have seen other administrators look at the issue differently (they have blocked with filter entries alone). I find it best to learn the varied perspectives and adapt accordingly. It seems to hinge on the idea of whether or not the administrator / editor believes that warnings / filters / etc. will sufficiently solve the problem. If one believes that they will, he or she will be less likely to block if those means have been used. If one doesn't think that they will, he or she will be more apt to block. I think you're right that most don't return, although some of course do (Lexecute did try to recreate the article from two years ago, today [17]), but there are good reasons on both sides. NTox · talk 03:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have another look at the talk page on this. I'm confused, now. Maile66 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Semachrysa jade
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. NTox · talk 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
71.250.123.23
I noticed you blocked this IP prior, and they're back making the same exact edits as they were before. I reported them to
This page has currently got an editprotected request on it. it appears that you fully-protected it indefinitely at the start of April (!) and this is still active. Care to have a look and see if unprotection is viable at this point? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Knox Street Historic District
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Daniel, will you be finishing this review? It does need further attention. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP
The IP you've blocked several times([18] etc.) is causing again disruption[19]. Like I suggested the last time you blocked him consider dealing with the whole 212.178.240.0 - 212.178.247.255 as he/she seems to be the only ones who's using it.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please keep an eye on tis article? Some guys are keeping removin´ the new pharaoh´s boxes... Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it was meant to do
See
WT:NRHP
- it does make things simpler for newbies, but maybe the look is a bit worse.
BTW,did you have any agreement with Richard M. ? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please have a look at this and earlier edits? This new editor keeps removing a sourced criticism section and despite warnings does not provide an explanation for their actions. As I have reverted twice, I don't want to revert again as that would violate 3RR. As there has not been a level 4 warning, the vandalism noticeboard is perhaps not yet appropriate. I know that 3RR does not cover vandalism fighting, but perhaps here the case for vandalism is not completely 100%. I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answered
Answered your question at UAA. But no rush. Have a good one. NTox · talk 05:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page. Message added 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
You might want to reconsider one of your recent edits to Independence Pass (Colorado). In the article Tree line, every occurrence of the singular term "tree line" is preceded by the definite article the. Truthanado (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Email
Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 17 1/1/2012-10/4. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
I seriously doubt it. The flames were reported at 3:49 AM. Even Anderson Street has yet to be determined for the fire. Remember, a propane company was also nearby. It's been a hot summer. Could be many reasons. Mitch32(Victim of public education,17 years and counting) 22:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You remember the area, that's an awfully rural portion of Sparta for kids to go hang out. But, we'll have to find out. This is still an unfortunate situation, but I have a hard time believing this was arson or unintended arson. Mitch32(Victim of public education,17 years and counting) 02:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh right now, we're just arguing stuff that has no relevancy to the site. Eventually I will write the article, but this is unfortunate.Mitch32(Victim of public education,17 years and counting) 02:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this decline, your rationale is that "user may be Vintagekits sock". This seems to be based on nothing more than Kittybrewster's comment "Please check whether User is Vintagekits." Is this really enough these days? Someone makes an informal checkuser request to no one in particular with no evidence whatsoever and it is enough to justify a 72-hour block? Really? I would ask you to reconsider. If you do, I would ask you to take into consideration the following:
IP's edits were correct
IP's explanation of opening multiple tabs, then sequentially deleting the word "Sir" and saving takes virtually no time at all
Given that, IP's ability to produce 100+ edits in an hour is easily understood
IP was at no time before the block challenged on his edits or given any chance to defend himself
The user is always free to request unblock again and provide more information (at least unless the talk page is revoked), with a different admin reviewing.
Addendum: PBS did exactly that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster does not seem to be the only user with suspicions.
As, unlike a registered account, an IP cannot be blocked indefinitely unless it's proven to be an open proxy, the bar for me for declining such an unblock without some sort of formal process is lower, especially with a comparatively short block length. If an SPI is opened, and the IP wishes to defend themselves, I would see no problem with an unblock for that purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you reviewed, the only allegation of puppetry was the vague one I quoted above. As for lower bars, it would seem the bar is so low as not to exist. IP was blocked for 72 hours for editing too fast, full stop. Basically, the ability to use tabbed browsing spurred the attack, and now the self-same ability and the ability to read is used to justify the SPI that's been opened. It's a shame that the bar against IPs is so low that they are subject to arbitrary buffoonery. The worst part is seeing this from three admins, including one I really respected (Kittybrewster), all in one incident. Not one of you thought, "Hmm, IP should probably be (or have been) talked to first." Not one of you thought, "Gee, 72 hours might be a bit excessive here." And particularly worrying, all it took was one editor suggesting that IP be checked against Vintagekits, with no evidence whatsoever, to sustain a 72-hour block that was baseless to begin with. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that, in retrospect someone should have talked to the IP first rather than just presume sockpuppetry. But by the time I reviewed two other admins were interacting with the IP on the talk page and had expressed their concerns. I generally tend to
assume that other admins will be acting in good faith, so I deferred to them (especially since I'm not personally familiar with the Vintagekits situation).
Had there been no comments or discussion on the talk page I might have done the investigation over and perhaps come to a conclusion where I might have put the unblock on hold while querying the other admin, as I've done in the past (my experience is that there's more to a possible sock situation than meets the eye, so you're better off asking before you go unblocking and perhaps starting a wheel war).
OK, I understand if you think an injustice was done. But we have a process to follow, and I think that by following it here we ended it about as well as we could have ... the IP was unblocked after a mere 4 hours, PBS undid his own block after finding that the edits were good from the appropriate WikiProject, but because he still has suspicions started an SPI at which the IP has ample opportunity to defend himself, moreso than he would have if he was still blocked (and unless there's behavioral evidence Kitty or PBS can provide to support this, I doubt the SPI will go anywhere as I think Checkuser requests are usually declined in this situation, and indeed the evidence may not be fresh as it's been a long time since Vintagekits edited). And the IP has handled this quite gracefully too, I might add. It doesn't look like anyone's ego got too much of a bruising.
I will say it once again ... I do wish people, when they see a sock of someone they're on the lookout for, would provide some more evidence because sometimes these blocks get challenged and reviewed by admins unfamiliar with the situation. But I've gotten criticism for the reverse of this situation sometimes—I decline an AIV saying I'd like to see more of a link, or who the suspected sockmaster of the "obvious sock" is, and the original reporter says "Are you crazy? It's so clearly X ..."
There is undoubtedly an opportunity for improvement here, for all concerned, but I think that primary responsibility rests with or on the admin who made the original block. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It's all well and good to assume the good faith of the blocking admin, but aren't you supposed to look at their reasons? PBS in good faith fucked up (not that he or she will admit it). At base, PBS couldn't imagine that an IP editor could be anything other than a newbie or a bad guy. So on seeing an IP rapidly editing, PBS ignored the fact that each edit was gnomish and had an edit summary explaining why it was being made. And when IP explained that he or she was simply acting according to
WP:PEER
, PBS took that as a further sign of being a bad guy, rather than of being a good-faith editor because obviously if an IP knows about WikiProjects, it must be some form of block evasion. Because, again, an IP just can't be a bona fide editor with some experience under his belt. He also ignored that IP's reaction to the block read like someone who hasn't experienced a block, at either first- or secondhand.
"It's all well and good to assume the good faith of the blocking admin, but aren't you supposed to look at their reasons?" I admit I didn't see the block message in the log, just what was on the user talk page at that point, which was the "blocked for suspected sockpuppetry" notice. "PBS in good faith fucked up (not that he or she will admit it)"
Agreed, and I know because I've been there once or twice. I agree that, had I been the first admin reviewing the user's behavior, I wouldn't have blocked without warning or discussing. But ... all the same, I've seen how it becomes counterproductive, and creates new levels of drama, to just overturn another admin's block that casually (I know because I did it once early in my adminship). It's better to let the other admin see that the block was unfounded and reverse it themselves; which is what happened ultimately. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
PBS was so caught up in the IPs-as-troublemaker mindset that he or she blew the call. That was okay at first (though less so later), people make mistakes, but you either did the same thing or failed to look at PBS's reasons. At the time of your edit, IP had answered PBS's questions, twice in one case, and PBS was at the barmy stage of asking IP what other IP addresses he or she had edited from, as though anyone would know that. There was simply no justification for the sock allegation or the block. As a member of the community, I would expect admins reviewing unblock requests to actually read what's been written and use their own discretion in looking at the blocking admin's justification. If an admin is just going to take the blocking admin's conclusions at face value without at least asking for more where, as here, the justification is lacking, I think I'd rather that admin leave the unblock requests to someone else. There is an attitude out there that admins and such generally stick together, which is not wholly justified, but finds support in incidents like this.
Well, what's wrong with admins having each other's back, at least to a point? You want all the people with the tools to be on the same page, at least initially.
I generally do look over the record if there's time; in this case it was rather longish. Since the IP did not dispute any of the facts either of the other admins were raising (i.e., the discussions were not bristling with linked diffs, which is basically classic
TLDR, I'll-let-another-admin-consider-this material, I stuck with the conversation on the talk page. I felt that given time, if it was meant to work out it would work out. So my experience has been. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sure you're curious as to why I find this particular injustice so noxious that I keep harping on it. All I can say is that if I, as a logged-in user, had done the same, at worst I would have been ignored. At best I would have gotten a note of appreciation or a barnstar. But because this was an IP, there was a block that should not have happened. As for it being a "mere four hours", three of those were just IP being ignored mid-conversation. And now there is a specious SPI. Because IP has been treated this way, it is hard to imagine IP will take on this sort of tedious grunt work in the future. We have a population problem, and overreactions like we've seen today don't help. This cowboy, shoot-from-the-hip approach to deploying the tools does no one any good. Adminship is a great responsibility because, forasmuch as the admin pages downplay the significance, use of the tools (good or poor) has a meaningful impact on how or whether people edit. Admins should be mindful of that when considering if, when and how to use the tools. Actions have consequences, even if we don't see them ourselves. -Rrius (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"All I can say is that if I, as a logged-in user, had done the same, at worst I would have been ignored." Well, I think that would have happened to a new account as well. As a long time user, you have earned a good deal of trust from the community that you would know what you were doing. "This cowboy, shoot-from-the-hip approach to deploying the tools does no one any good." Indeed, and unblocking without letting consensus take hold would have been as shoot-from-the-hip as the original block. Two wrongs would not have made a right there. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Check user has been declined, so you may wish to revert you edit here -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South End–Groesbeckville Historic District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open space (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I've been in touch with this user via email. Thanks for stepping in, though I don't want to bombard this user with too much confusing information, and would prefer to handle this case myself except for bureaucrat intervention (because username changes are obviously needed). Deryck C. 13:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I don't mean removing it - it'll just make them even more confused! Deryck C. 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for United States Post Office (Yonkers, New York)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. Would you mind explaining in greater detail (at User talk:Taparchives#Username) why you blocked User:Taparchives for an inappropriate username? I am trying to understand what the problem is. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Flintstones car model at 2008 NY Auto Show.jpg)
Thanks for uploading
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
" Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. Refactoring as alleged is a serious allegation, but I don't see it in the recent edits. The user hasn't been warned for it in six days, and even yesterday's warning wasn't final. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)"
I'm not big on the admin parts of WP, I usually just do minor copyedits. (Don't even remember how I came across this…)
What does refactoring mean?
The IP was warned about changing other's comments on Talk Pages on 6, 10, 15 & 16 September. Or does it need to be the special one with the blue circle with "i" in it? How and who can do a final warning?
(Are these examples I should have put in the original request?)
I can't find one now, but I remember there were several that I came across where the user made small change in someone's comment (puncuation/capitalization which seems to be one of their main issues) and then put their own comment below. I've not reverted when I come across that. Should I?
Thanks for your reply.--VikÞor | Talk 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK South End–Groesbeckville Historic District
It might just be something in the settings on my browser, but I was unable to open Source #2, your main source. I've passed the nom along for someone else to review. But thought I'd mention this in case it wasn't my browser. Maile66 (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
Arts and Crafts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rosetta barnstar
The Rosetta Barnstar
Thank you for your work in translating that Bulgarian document for me! I really appreciate it.
I'm sorry, but you had to notify the nominators during a GA review. When you had opted to review
Secret of success (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies for the late response. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Quick-failing an article is a much more serious concern when compared to holding a long-time review (putting it on hold after listing issues). It is not mandatory to inform the reviewers, but when the review is quick-failed, the possibility of a nominator finding it on their watchlist and simultaneously responding is zero, because even before they can think, the article is failed. That requires a notification in order to try for a response by the nominator. Moving on to your review in specific, lets talk about the first point, prose. You have made a statement "there are large sections circled in red where I just stopped giving specifics as there were so many places where the language could be smoothed out." The prose is required to be "clear and concise", which means "smoothing out" is NOT under the criteria. If there are any grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, wrong English, etc, present in significant amounts in the article which cannot be fixed in a small period of time, that would validate quick-failing. But that is not the case here, and even if it is (I do not think so), you have not justified it sufficiently. As I had pointed out, the consistency in terms does not fall under GA criteria, no matter what, and comes under the "smoothing out" business, which is not related to
Secret of success (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, an uncertainty still looms over me, but making this an issue would be construed as an attempt to waste a user's time, so I'll let go of this (my apologies if I seemed too picky, or went to an extreme end for no reason). Since you have no problem in copy-editing the article, I would be happy if you do so. Unless I'm mistaken, after copy-editing, the article will not have any more major problems, and all it requires is a re-nomination. I'm retiring quite soon, and won't be able to do that, so I have to check in and see if anyone else would be interested to do so. In this situation, good luck, thanks and my apologies.
Secret of success (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For responding to an AIV post almost 12 hours after it had been posted (and overlooked for several admins), I hereby award you this barnstar. Congrats! :) Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was the last admin to delete this article and a neutral editor pointed out to me that the article was deleted under CSD#A7 in error (which is true as I completely overlooked a claim to significance before I deleted it). Anyway, as you protected the article from being re-created, I was wondering if you'd have a problem with me undeleting said article considering it was deleted in error on my part. Many thanks AngelOfSadness talk 17:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Jacksons Victory tour
Hello!
Please add some sources, where is mentioned that The Jacksons planned to visit European countries during their 1984 tour, or I am forced to revert your last edit.
Thank you for the additions (edits)! This article is now more comprehensive than it was before.
With regard to the claim, English is not my native language, so I thought that this article is an example, which shows us that Victory tour was supposed to end in Los Angeles anyway, regardess of what was the initial plans for Europe. I did not read myself that the group is going to dispand but only the tour itself. This was the idea of the article for me.
I would also add the exact date for the press conference, because it is an interesting fact for the fans and it is proved by the source.
Lassoboy (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations! In spite of everything, right now I am proud that Victory tour article is now better than ever! Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I made some modifications, if you do not agree with them, then let`s meet at the talk page and discuss it there. Lassoboy (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I wrote the answer for you in the talk page and added back this Don King statement and Michael`s reaction to this. I think that this proves the readers the general atmosphere Michael had to be in then and how it affected him.
And by the way, can you recommend me some sources you mentioned in the talk page? It seems to me that you are quite aware of Michael Jackson and the Jacksons affairs. Are you a fan? And as a fan of Michael Jackson I would be really pleased to get to know about these sources you know. Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abang Community
Abang Community appears to be writing an article in good faith at his User page. Can you help him? Please do not respond to me as I am just trying to get some help for a new editor. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cobra - UAA
Hi. Simply for the sake of future accuracy, can you explain why 'Cobra206' is not close enough to 'Cobra', the radio station [20]? In general, do you believe numbers after the username like this invalidate the match? NTox · talk 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
WP: UAA. Message added 16:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Daniel Case. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page. Message added 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP Disruption
Here. I am not sure if I could restore everything in the page correctly. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on my TP. I take the opportunity to ask you a favour, if possible: A user is somehow obliging me to an edit-war on
WP:SPS because he thinks the author is notable or reliable. I know that sometimes we are even susceptible on the quality of publishers. How can we accept a self-published text as reliable? Could you intervene and say your opinion on the article. Also the user has removed a "citation required" I added, without any explanation. If I go over and insist on this I will have added another edition of mine to the said article, which I do not wish. Could you warn the user on removing tags/templates arbitrarily and perhaps restore it? I would be very thankful if you may. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
Since you blocked the user a couple of days ago, this SPI (stumblingly opened in the wrong space by me but happily rescued by someone more experienced) may be of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cowfers. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help request
I don't know how to report a user to the UAA. Could you look at the case of the user whose username means "Fuck Turkey". You can find it in the users reported to admins for vandalism. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done already. I will use my credit in another occasion. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
