User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2012 Election Need Your Feedback

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Nangparbat?

Hi Nishkid! Do you think you can take a look at this. I'm not entirely sure, but based on the edit summaries (POV and anti-Indian comments), it might be Nangparbat.

K2 (mountain)

• Forzacry65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. Elockid (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

George F. Kennan

I've always thought it was FA quality; but then my definition of FA is (and many FAs don't achieve this when promoted) not a public embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several argumentative authors about the Cold War; these are five of them. None of their opinions are consensus - as is demonstrated by the extent to which they disagree with each other, and with Kennan's biographers.

Now the question is: what do we do about a notable author's non-consensus opinion about a given subject (Carlyle on the French Revolution, to pick a standard example)? My feeling is that, unless some strong reason to do otherwise can be shown, we put it in Thomas Carlyle, not in French Revolution, in part because it can be explained all together in the author's article, and in part because it is one author's view, whatever bad eminence he may have obtained, and more than a passing mention is undue weight. The argument is even stronger against putting Carlyle's view of Danton in Georges Danton, where it is only one piece of the puzzle, and is even more undue weight.

I hope this is clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there may not be any, any more than there is a consensus version of Reagan or Carter. I think there is a mainstream, somewhere between Gaddis and Cockburn, but I won't swear to it; if there is, it probably disagrees with both of them; they agree that Kennan was amoral (inconsistent, I think, with The Nuclear Delusion).

I would read the end of the books (in the references) by Isaacson, Miscamble, and Mayers and see if they summarize the current state of opinion on Kennan; if not, see if they agree on what his legacy was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating article. I agree with Pelz' conclusion: In another decade of research, if Putin permits it, we may have consensus on who was right. (I would follow this summary of Kennan's influence rather than the contending parties, especially if you find others who agree with Pelz' evaluation of the state of scholarship; otherwise we will have a cruft magnet again.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Isaacson is, in large part, on Google Books; the others may be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/92.3.126.124

Some intervention needs to be taken against this IP. The continually convert Azad Kashmir wikilinks to Azad Jammu and Kashmir wikilinks and Indias to Republic of Indias. They also removed J&K from India articles stating that J&K are disputed ([1] [2] [3] [4]). I have been going around reverting several of this user's edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This user keeps on making the similar edits. It appears that they have not learned anything from their 48h ban. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

NVM, looks like someone already gave them a new 72 hour block Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This user needs a new block, they appear to be continuing all the edits they have been blocked for. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This user does not seem to get the message that their edits are disruptive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey already blocked. I've extended this to 1 month. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ghazne again?

89.165.16.205 (talk · contribs). Same obsessions. There was another IP behaving like this yesterday: 89.165.6.68 (talk · contribs). --Folantin (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked /19 range for 72 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now it's James23456 (talk · contribs). --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, changed block settings on /19 range. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Joklolk

I'm a bit curious about this. Could you elaborate a bit on his "cross-wiki vandalism"? What did he do, and how did you find out about his activities in other wikis? Offliner (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

His account had been locked earlier today by steward Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Across the wikis, he is known as "JohnCCC", among other things. We've been dealing with his cross-wiki vandalism over the Checkuser-l mailing list for months now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot for answering. Offliner (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AA editing restrictions?

Hello Nishkid. Looking at the Lida Vorig case at WP:AE, you said this user has been placed on indefinite editing restrictions.. What are they exactly? The links seem to point back to a general discussion of all possible restrictions. Or was your action simply to add her to the 'list of notified people,' which makes her eligible for future sanctions? Whatever your decision, maybe you could put a closure box on that discussion. I don't care about this case; I just like to see things being closed out :-). EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The all-encompassing restrictions are noted here. I'll add a closed box to the discussion now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the thing with the traffic-light symbol answers my question! It looks to be a strong remedy. Thanks for your response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAR delegate

Started a discussion there YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst blp

Hi Nishkid,

Your help is sought in resolving the blp issues on the Koenraad Elst article. User:TwoHorned is repeatedly 1) inserting libellous content without any references 2) is removing "request quote" tag on the content that I found hardly matches with the content in the sources 3) truncating the quotations and attributing different meanings

I have tried to reason out with the user many times but in vain. Request you to kindly look into the matter and help resolve the problem. thanks nihar (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

Can you take a look at Vertpox. Exhibits the usual patterns. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:NisarKand?

Could you please look at the pattern of edits by User:Ketabtoon (specially his obsession with attacking User:Tajik [10])? Is he NisarKand? Also look at User:Inuit18 (might be related to User:Beh-nam). Alefbe (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither user appears to be a sockpuppet. Odd. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation Nishkid64. User:Alefbe, what makes you think that it is me who is obsessed with attacking User:Tajik? If you look closer, you will notice that it is User:Tajik who is following me around and keeping a close eye over my contributions. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Childof12AM, BBBfan, etc. SPI

I wonder if you'd mind taking a quick look at this: [11] I wonder if there are any underlying IP's, and also whether this is the tip of the iceberg to a larger sock farm connected with the one that was hassling BQZip01 as well as myself this past summer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember what the harassment account's name was? I do recall checking some accounts a while back that were harassing BQZip01 (or some other user starting with the letter B). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious one was a sockfarm of two "possibly" related users, ThreeE and Grandma Dottie, which I mentioned in the SPI above. There was also someone harassing CadenS in a very similar way to the Axmann8 story, and similar to the Childof12AM/BBBfan situation, although they could just be copycats. I have a note from May 19th regarding "possibly" related accounts Corpiestre, Fondesep and Horneldinkrag. A long-term abuser possibly connected to at least some of these is user Pioneercourthouse, who often seems to be active around the time these impostors appear, although that could be coincidental. The banned user Cheers Dude was also engaged in harassment at one point. I would start with ThreeE and Grandma Dottie, which are at least reasonably recent. Some of those go back a ways. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that BO2ip01 was created nearly 2 months ago - June 14th. When I get the chance, I'll see what else was going on around then. That might give you something more specific to look at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Right around the time that BQZip01 was having problems with several other editors, including ThreeE and Grandma Dottie, on this page:[12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than what Versageek has already reported at the SPI, I can't find any indication that these users are related to Grandma Dottie or anyone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we've either got copycats or we've got someone clever enough to elude easy detection by checkusers. Ugh. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New York City page

Can you add on to the New York City page the “City Council” members to the government section of the page Category:Government of New York City , Membership of the New York City Council

Thanks

It seems unnecessary in my opinion. I think the {{main}} link to Government of New York City should suffice. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing concerns on Heaven and Earth (book)

Could you possibly take a look at Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)#Improper canvassing by Tillman? I think it might be time to take a stronger line with these editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby sock on H + E (book) talk

Tr32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks like another sock to me. Additions to talk page need removal and account blocked? ► RATEL ◄ 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked the sock and removed talk page comment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with these sockpuppets. I hesitate to impose on you further, but could you please tag their userpages with {{CheckedSockpuppet|Scibaby}} when you block them? Doing so will make them show up in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby which will help us to recognize patterns and the like. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

CU request

Hi Nishkid64, do you think you could take a look at this talk page section, particularly Anemone's comment, with an eye to determining if there is sufficient evidence to do a checkuser? As I have edited a few of the articles he seems to be targeting, and have already blocked the IP, I want to ensure someone impartial looks at it and makes the decision. Much appreciated. Risker (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no coincidence that the IP and user have been editing the same exact articles just hours/days apart from one another.  Confirmed IP=BlackWidowRon. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now blocked. Risker (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

need your help at Talk:Abdul Hai Habibi

Hi Nishkid64, you seem to be active in Afghanistan related articles. Some wikipedians have crticized a famous personality from Afghanistan, Abdul Hai Habibi, and they have used David Neil MacKenzie as a reference. In the discussion page I have proved that MacKenzie was wrong. I would really appreciate a 3rd (neutral) person's opinion on the issue. Tajik and Inuit18 are doing their best to defame some major Pashtun personalities here in wikipedia with the help of a senior wikipedian, Alefbe. I have warned Inuit18 2 times and all he/she did was delete the warnings and continued with his/her unconstructive editing - you give him the 3rd warning. Tajik has a history of pushing ethnic POV material.

Personally, I am getting tired of removing anti-Pashtun and racist content from encyclopedia. I want to move on and add more constructive content/articles to wikipedia, but I can't ignore the racist activity taking place in here. Please, I request you and other admins to do something about this issue. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

I am new to wikipedia, there are a lot of rules/policies and I really didn't know about WP:NOR. The only reason I brought my original research into the discussion was that Tajik and Inuit18 are doing their best to defame some major Pashtun personalities here in wikipedia with the help of a senior wikipedian, Alefbe. Abdul Hai Habibi is a very well known and famous scholar from Afghanistan and using 1 or 2 references to attack such a famous personality (especially by a Tajik or Iranian) puts the neutrality or WP:good faith of the person under suspecion.

Please refer to the following discussion as well User talk:Sommerkom. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

My claims and edits are all backed by non-Tajik non-Persian sources.--Inuit18 (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Another one for the files: User:Canonical Assembly Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (PS. Nice user page, I'm not very knowledgeable about art but am fond of Bosch and Brueghel.)

Also User:Wyplash. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As always, thanks guys. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

just fyi...

A Counter-proposal (September 26) is being discussed at DC 8 (talk).
--NBahn (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP disruptive editing

Some French royalty pages have been the targets of disruptive editing here[13] and here[14]. Frania inquired on the talk page here[15] as to the reason behind these continued disruptive edits, which went unheeded. The information this individual[16] is adding is contradictory and error-ridden. Is there anything you can do? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, a better case could be made if you added sources to back up the original version of the article. The IP appears to be willing to listen a valid justification of his edits. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

Hi again! Just letting you know that it seems like Nangparbat is causing more POV pushing on this article (Jammu and Kashmir). Elockid (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protected. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat today

• 86.143.239.202 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

86.162.71.49 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

86.163.153.204 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ectoplasm67 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come in to contact with "Ectoplasm67". He has a clear POV and I've once again had to break the 3RR on the British Pakistanis article. Alan16 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

86.162.67.87 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.235.118 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.235.77 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

86.156.215.197 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.237.220 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Morefire34 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.178.4 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Martof56 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.237.155 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

86.156.215.14 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

86.163.155.26 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.239.19 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.237.208 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.239.41 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

86.153.132.40 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Articles

Thanks for protecting Jammu and Kashmir. Just as another heads up, it also seems that Nangparbat is causing more disruption with these articles:

• Operation Tupac
• Inter-Services Intelligence

Elockid (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Du Fu/archive1

Needs a revisit. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indus Valley

Hi my name is Dewan I need your help in the Indus Valley article! In the article it does not mention the people of the Indus Valley. It is clearly known now that the people of the Indus are Dravidians the people of mainly south India. It should be mentioned in the article and espacially the beginning of the article that they are Dravidians. However the user:K.Khokhar always reverts my edits without giving me any explaination. I put it in the discussion page of the site with no response. The Indus Valley article are filled with Pakistani nationalist and I need everyones help to preserve a neutral point of view. Thankyou. (Dewan 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

I have given 2 reference to the article in which what I have claimed: The people of the Indus Valley are believed to be Dravidian, mainly the population of South India and Brahui people of Balochistan. What do I do if k.khokhar undo it again. Because I already made 3 changes. I also wrote on Khokhar talk page about the issue and my edits are still erased.(Dewan 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Vandal User talk:Fkfjdf attacking South Asia

This vandal has been removing content from this page. The user has or may have violated 3RR and has been consistently warned about their edits (only to redo those edits literally seconds later). I believe I have violated (or will soon violated) 3RR undoing their vandalism. Can something be done to this user. Thanks, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NVM, user:Ragib blocked them already Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Khalidi, other articles

Thanks for watching out for editing problems at the family of articles related to Khalidi, Moshe Ya'alon, etc. Please do be careful. I think you're at 3RR as a technical matter on Khalidi, and you should double check to make sure you're not past 3RR there or anywhere else. There's no hurry, but at some point we ought to remove the POV tags and restore anything in the articles that got munged up recently. Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I count only two reverts at Khalidi, but concern duly noted. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Locking a page with a disputed "quote" in it - Stormfront

When pages are locked often admins roll back to the next to the second last version. I also wonder why admins don't consider WP:BURDEN when doing so and more specifically the fact that the burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores material. I believe locking a page for a fortnight is excessive, the medicine is worse than the affliction. It would be more useful for you to give your opinion in talk about whether this edit meets verifiability criteria.Goramon (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming in and pointing that out about the sources. I had read a book with the same title as the Chapter "Cyborgs in Cyberspace" from "Reality Squared", and unsurprisingly not found Stormfront. Still, I just want to make sure the source directly supports the text included in the article, and since "others" is a mass attribution, I want to know if the text describes the opinion of a group of people and how large that group is, of if the text is simply one person's opinion. I actually have no objection to the quote if it's supported and attributed in the text (as opposed from simply referenced) correctly.Goramon (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to know more about the block of User:Ragusino

Good morning, I would know something more about the block of user Ragusino. I have followed some articles on en.Wikipedia because we have had different vandalism in it.wikipedia (I am sysop of it.wikipedia). Ragusino seemed to have a different vision to that of Direktor but not so bad considering some concerns.

The position of Ragusino seemed to be correct and I have asked some justifications in the talk page of Talk:House_of_Kabužić/Caboga because the concerns of Ragusino are also my concerns considering that in the header of page we can read the coat of army of the house (taken from a croation book) and the name is Caboga and any historical book reports the name of Caboga (which is not the italian name but the dalmatian name and dalmatian was the official language of Republic of Ragusa).

Reading at the block of Ragusino I don't understand the justification for his block because the check user has not displayed any "clear" proof for his sockpuppeteer. It seemed to me that a war edit has been in favor of one part instead of investigate in detail the problem.

In my opinion the difference of vision should be solved in another way considering that the other part is strongly oriented in a vision not shared by a big part of the historical literature.

What I understand is that Ragusino=Cristian.Bilicic but it's only a suspect.

I would suggest a more detailed investigation not only by check user side but also a more "neutral" resolution of conflict.

Thank you

--Ilario (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ragusino (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino/Archive

Hello Ilario. Excuse my interjection, but I'm familiar with the Ragusino case. Your suspicion that Ragusino and Cristian.Bilicic are the same was confirmed by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino/Archive. For a number of his sockpuppets see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ragusino. Ragusino was an extremely energetic puppeteer and continued his war for a long time. He was not good at discussing anything on Talk. It is too bad, because it would be helpful to have people with knowledge of the Italian side on some of the Dalmatian issues who are willing to behave diplomatically. I recall that Ragusino continued his war using numerous IPs. Seven pages had to be semiprotected when he kept editing in spite of his block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedir a sock of Koov?

• Pedir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov

Hello Nishkid64. Turkish Flame has posted on my talk page proposing that Pedir is a sock of Koov. I would be tempted to issue an indef block based on the stilted language used in the edit summaries, and the interest in diplomatic templates, unless you think otherwise. Pedir has edited Foreign relations of Romania, an article previously edited by:

• Rolsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Rohlg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

two accounts that are already blocked as Koov socks. I have not run across any new socks of Koov since Rohlim in February, but Pedir could easily be him. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. He's been quite active since my last Koov sweep in early July. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

Hi there I plan on running for admin. some time in the near future, I began editing here on September 2007. Do you think I have a good chance of getting approved, I have a very troubled past, What do I need to work on?. Thank-you and please reply, House1090 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the information! House1090 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jammu and Kashmir article

Hello,

As someone who has been involved in editing the Jammu and Kashmir article I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on the talk section about what to include in the lead. Pahari Sahib 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gadzooks!

Re [17], I feel I should complain to the "Islamic Radical and perhaps terrorist" who are supposed to be funding me - I haven't seen a penny yet! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Report about Case Srebrenica

Hi Nishkid, I haven't seen you involved with this article or the related Darko Trifunovic article, so asking you to consider semi-protection of both the article and talk pages. It's fairly evident that the disruption to both pages comes from a person mentioned in the article and/or affiliated parties, and I'm not aware of any constructive edits from anonymous editors. Admittedly the article is closely watched and the disruption is not intense in frequency. But it seems to be coming from a single source, which source is likely a banned editor, so it might be worth sending a message. The aggrieved person is well aware of how to use wikimail to enunciate concerns. Just a thought on a possible solution to this periodic and predictable disruption... Franamax (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected. I'm not sure who the 94.67 IPs are, but the 94.189 IPs are clearly Darko Trifunovic. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Urartu semiprotection

Can you please stop removing sprotection from Urartu? This is beginning to take on proportions of a wheel-war. We have lots of truly long-term trolls who are just waiting for semiprotection to be lifted. All anonymous "contributions" we get after you unprotect this again just need to be reverted and simply clutter the edit history. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the page four months ago after it had been protected for nearly a year. Before that, I had protected the page three times (to prevent Araret arev from editing) and unprotected it once. Boy, you're right. This is a clear case of wheel warring. Dabbie, dabbie, dabbie. You must learn that if you want people to listen, you shouldn't be so abrasive, condescending, or accusatory. I hope you sincerely take my advice to heart to prevent such unpleasant interactions from occurring in the future. Here's an example of the type of message people would be more receptive to: Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hi, I have again semi-protected Urartu to prevent some truly long-term trolls from editing the article. I noticed that you had unprotected the article before, and I just wanted to recommend that you leave semi-protection in place indefinitely, as these individuals keep returning to the article every time page protection is lifted. Thanks."

In which my reply would be: "Okay, thanks for the note. I'll definitely keep that in mind." See how much better that went? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnali123

Did you compare to the list that was cleared in yesterday's report to see if one of those SPAs is socking? I'm just having a hard time believing this wave of completely unrelated accounts that are created specifically to make the same comment on the same page. I've looked, and I can't find a fansite that's organizing a meatpuppeting session, either.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I went through them yesterday per J.delanoy's request. The two new accounts are not related to ones cleared yesterday. I am a bit surprised by the geographic spread of the accounts I've cleared so far. I don't think it's open proxy abuse, but perhaps some sort of off-wiki recruitment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thread is deleted now (apparently due to the Nazi references), but here we go:http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:KQ7FclNdhEsJ:www.mjfanclub.net/mjforum373/showthread.php%3Fp%3D200669+%2Bwikipedia+%2B%22michael+jackson%22+unfair+350&cd=8&hl=ja&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

—Kww(talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking yet another MascotGuy IP. I know it's getting tedious. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

I reverted his edits to your talk page as banned users aren't allowed to edit. I hope you didn't mind the reversions. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pashtun diaspora

Hello Nishkid64, could you please take action on the Pashtun diaspora article? An anonymous IP Address is constantly removing entire sections of the article, despite the fact that multiple references are present. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More Brunodam Socks?

It looks to me like Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is probably another sockpuppet of indef-blocked Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive.

Blocked sock 70.90.59.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), whose comments in the investigation are pretty identical to the comments of Romandrumanagh and 209.215.162.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), first inserted the material that the Romandrumanagh account, newly-created with red-flag username, showed up to edit-war over (see history of Drumanagh article).

Looks to me like Romandrumanagh is 70.90.59.74, and 209.215.162.17 is most likely the same user. Romandrumanagh suddenly decided to "retire in protest" shortly before the indef-block came down on the other accounts. Has not edited recently, but I think that, if others concur it's the same user, the account should also be blocked and flagged as part of the sockdrawer. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also check out Paul0559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who started the Drumanagh article, and also lobbied for the same content the socks edit-warred over. Per this sock investigation it looks like we have two drawers, and high probability of same puppetmaster. Yow. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The article where the edit-warring happened, Drumanagh was started by blocked sock Paul0559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), part of the Rex Dominator sock drawer. As some of those also used IP 70.90.59.74, it looks like both sock drawers have a high probability of same puppetmaster. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs), Easy4all (talk · contribs), Perseverator8 (talk · contribs), Paul0559 (talk · contribs), Albich (talk · contribs), StrVarus (talk · contribs), A(u)R(elianus duca)THUR (talk · contribs), 77ron (talk · contribs), Maltesemizzi (talk · contribs) as Brunodam socks. RexDominator is unrelated; as I stated at the SPI, he's a sock of Mike Babic. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent checkuser block

I recently added an IP exempt flag to an editor due to getting caught in a checkuser block (User_talk:Xandar#IP_address_block). I wasn't able to find what checkuser case this was related to (IP is 149.254.218.20) so I just wanted to double-check and make sure that was the right way to handle things. If not, just let me know. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 03:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a block against an IP used by serial sockpuppeteer Hamish Ross. Thanks for handling the IPBE issue. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again! Shell ^babelfish 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

The user Athenean keeps removing perfectly fine material on baseless grounds of "aesthetic qualities" of the picture. This is, I believe, nothing as but an excuse for his POV pushing being displayed here by removing a picture that demonstrates the fustanella but is Albanian. I only reverted his vandalism once, and I writing to you in order to not get into a edit war with him. Here is the link to above mentioned article and changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fustanella&action=history--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also while you're at it, please at the message Athenan has left me. Notice the threatning words such as "Do you really think this is a good idea?" and "This is your final warning".

I see you're back, and have resumed your bad old edit-warring habits. In this instance, I noticed you reverted me instantly. Do you really think that is a good idea? We had total peace and quiet for the month that you were blocked, which ended the second your block expired. Tenet has ancestry from Himara, Albania does NOT have MEPs, (and isn't going to for the foreseeable future), and no one's ever heard of this Anagnosti fellow outside Albania. The fact that there is a page in the Albanian wikipedia means nothing, only English language sources will do. Consider this your final warning. --Athenean (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I also ask that you intervene in this edit war that Athenean has started in the article of Himara. He has now tag teamed with Alexikoua once again to make multiple reverts wihout any consent while I have opened a dialog in the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Himar%C3%AB --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you revert Athenean's edit on the fustanella article relating to the photo, since his excuse is not valid, and I want to refrain from any actions that would be considered edit warring?--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That restriction was totally unwarranted. I did not engage in any edit warring, I requested your help in order to not engage in any edit warring, and I started a dialogue in the talk page for Himara. Where did I go wrong? As far as the fustanella article is concerned, Athenean's edit is completely out of line and you know it, but you refuse to revert it and if I do you will probably block me. I don't know, but to me it seems an aful like you're taking their side. As far as engaging in dialogue, it is only these two guys (Athenean and Alexikoua) who keep editing Albanian related articles in order to push their nationalistic point of view, and it's next to impossible to have a civil dialogue with them.--I Pakapshem (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally unwarranted? I even warned you that if you continued edit warring once your block expired, I'd place you on restrictions. I honestly believe that neither one of you is going to stop edit warring in the future, hence the restrictions against you and Athenean. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did I edit warr after my block expired?--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You went straight to Fustanella and reverted Athenean's edit from August 2. You then went to Himarë and dove back into the edit war over famous Himariots. I'm not here to babysit you over what is and isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. The ArbCom restriction is our way of keeping you and Athenean in check. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So technically I shouldn't even edit in wiki according to you, since any single edit I make for you is edit warring. Athenean's edit was completely ridiculous and my revert was more than appropriate. In Himara I just added more famous Himariots and Athenean just deleted them for no reason. Doesn't seem like you're a good judge of what's happening.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Another IP range issue

I've been seeing a bunch of edits adding unconfirmed names (or adding colors to names where they were not before) from IPs, but the range looks too large to block, yet it belongs to Cingular mobile. Here are the last four IPs used (the first is currently in use):

• 166.217.82.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.153.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.173.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.200.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Is there going to be an easy way to prevent this individual's edits?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Page protection could be an option, but the editing appears to be so sporadic that it might do more harm than good. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So a block would be out of the question here? :/—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't support a rangeblock here. Too much collateral. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

James Otis, Jr.

A user named User:jamesotisjunior made these edits [18] to the page James Otis, Jr.. Obviously when the persons name is the same as the page one would expect they would not be neutral. But he made a lot of edits so I don't want to just go and undo them all. Could you or someone else check them out? Thanks. -Phil5329 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)