User talk:Nishkid64/Archive 63

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.

Please verify

...another User: Scibaby sock: User:Samuel Belkins. I've handed out the treatment per WP:DUCK. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

...and User:Chas Balz? Not blocked yet, as it's a bit less evidence than I like so far. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Any user who hits Lindzen, Watts, Plimer and the other usual targets within their first 10-20 edits is usually Scibaby. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One more: User:Do You Tweet?. Blocked already. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo-related edit warring

Unfortunately Ev (talk · contribs), who used to watch these things, is not active right now, so could you please pay attention to the latest edits by Tadija (talk · contribs), which disregard the long-standing consensus? Colchicum (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Lost interest? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit distracted at the moment with work and everything. I'll get to it later this week. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Another'n like the other'n, as we say on the farm: User:Grossekopf Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it two minutes ago. :-) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn you're good. Whatever we're paying you checkusers nowadays, you deserve a raise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

...sigh... User:Stopange Sorry to keep bothering you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, he came back fast. Range blocked for 12 hours. Thanks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I Pakashem's friend

User User:Sarandioti just made his come back, again promoting nationalistic agenda on Vlore and Foustanella. Seems history is repeating for 7th time. Apart from the repeated personal attacks against other users [[1]] [[2]] [[3]], obviously nothing's changed in his 'contribution' [[4]]. Thanks for your time in advance.Alexikoua (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DavidYork71

I noticed you blocked a couple of accounts as sockpuppets of this account recently. They returned as EffGeeBee (talk · contribs) so I have blocked that account indefinitely. I also blocked their IP address 124.170.71.207 (talk · contribs) for a week. I suspect that ANZCER (talk · contribs) is probably the same person but I have not blocked them. You are welcome to alter any of these blocks, at your discretion.-gadfium 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I picked up another account and open proxy IP with Checkuser. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check BestFaithConceivable (talk · contribs) as well.-gadfium 08:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently sure this is the same editor that I've blocked them indef myself. As before, you are welcome to alter the block at your discretion.-gadfium 08:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is also him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also AsLebAsIcanB (talk · contribs) (blocked by Mattinbgn) and Contrabenificence (talk · contribs) blocked by me.-gadfium 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok

I understand, but i will stop when User:Kedadi recive warning too. He also is part of this problem. But, i understand completly. Šarplaninac edit

Tadija (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy spammers

Hello, what can be done about these people spamming up the user space with their spam? Should I just report them to SPI? Triplestop x3 23:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we could prevent this. For now, I'd recommend reporting it to SPI. CheckUsers can then block the underlying IP to prevent further abuse. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom."

You rejected my article "Chernobyl. Vengeance of peaceful atom." because it does not satisfy some requirements of verification. But I cannot understand why. It is made accurately also as other articles of such type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VicDim (talk • contribs) 11:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Hi again Nishkid! Could you please semi-protect the following pages since Nangparbat is once again continue to edit?

• South Asia
• Mohenjo-daro
• Referendum
• Culture of Asia
• Mehrgarh
• History of Pakistan

Maybe since Nangparbat was editing yesterday on this and might come back

• Harappa

Also this suspected user:

• Foodforthought009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Again thanks for your past work in dealing with this user! Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages protected. Not sure who Foodforthought009 is, but he's definitely not Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks a bunch. I added Foodforthought009 because he was editing one of the pages you protected and he vandalized Thegreyanomoly's user page. If I'm not mistaken Thegreyanomoly is also one of the users who have been tracking Nangparbat, so I assumed that it was Nangparbat causing disruption. I'll remove the sock tag now then. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat today

86.158.234.4 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you can also semi-protect Mughal Empire the article itself? Nangparbat is causing disruption there too. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

86.156.213.239 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

86.158.238.59 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The usual

User:Bar Non Please do the necessary. Thanks - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another customer: User:A Prose Narrative Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and rolled back. Please confirm. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. I wonder if this fellow is employed or in school. He sure has a lot of time on his hands. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, possibly this is his job. BTW, I think you missed User:Do You Tweet? above (section "Please verify"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Tagged Do You Tweet?. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Found and clamped the problem. Turns out passwerd portekshun R gud. --King Öomie 21:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Attack username

There was a thread on here [5] where the username in question is visible, should this be censored? Triplestop x3 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I only see a diff pointing to my article talk page (which has already been oversighted). Is there anywhere else where the username is mentioned? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, the link takes me directly to WT:U. --King Öomie 12:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No I mean the only thing I see at the thread on WT:U is a link pointing to the section (#A request) which I had already oversighted. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, where it says "(Username redacted)", Triplestop is saying that the full name was posted there and then courtesy-blanked once it was discovered to be an attack name, but it still exists in public history. --King Öomie 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see it now. I think I'll ask a more experienced oversighter to look into this. I'm fairly certain that even if I oversight the original edit, it will still be visible in the later versions of the page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, since I've never actually seen the Oversight interface, but my assumption is that if you Oversight the original edit it was added in, and every other revision between that and when it was blanked, it will be hidden. Again, this is me guessing :D

I actually find the oversight tool very interesting... --King Öomie 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Brexx

Hi!

Would you mind checking Youaregleeba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

Please and thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ostravaman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) might also be a sock of his. Ostravaman is making the same exact edits as Youaregleeba. MS (Talk|Contributions) 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good eye! I was just about to ask you about Ostravaman. I've reverted all of the edits made by the previous two socks and Ostravaman is reverting me on a bunch of them. Created today. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Balomapetaluma (talk · contribs), Skripov (talk · contribs), Malolos (talk · contribs), Huddersfield (talk · contribs) and Ostravaman (talk · contribs). Two open proxies blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple socks(?)

Can you check these? Created at the same time, editing music articles, VERY fast new user transition into AFD...

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

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

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

The Source of Wiki Power (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks, --King Öomie 13:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, definitely some interesting AfD activity there. Looks like sockpuppetry/meattpuppetry.  Confirmed the following as one user:

1. ITalkTheTruth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. KingofSuperheros (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Kelvin Martinez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Thoughtfulnes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. The Source of Wiki Power (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Blocked Kelvin Martinez 1 week, rest indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! Maybe I can stop seeing this guy bugging Libs in my watchlist. --King Öomie 14:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inuit18

I've noticed that you just blocked Inuit18 for disruptive editing and now he's using annon IPs to evade the block to continue his disruptive editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.173.179.142 By the way he's a sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. If you see here he makes multiple unblock requests and now here he does it the same way, always asking why he was blocked.--119.73.4.187 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I sometimes get emotional. But of course that is not right. And then you need somebody to warn you. Thank you. Teymur Shushali (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Teymur Shushali

Our Friend?

Jameson Sykers --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Please verify. I also short-term blocked two IP's tonight: 99.204.36.10 and 68.26.78.14. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All confirmed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And Wilson Sanders. Good thing the Abuse Filter picked that up. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mughal empire

I am very sure there is a need for protection for the Mughal Empire. People are changing information to fit their POV. Some are trying to make it sound Turkish (from Turkey), as well as Pakistani, Indian, and Afghan. So there is much edit warring so please can you make the site secured. Thankyou User Talk:Dewan357

I only re added the image which was deleted by this nationalist Hindustani user above me here is the diff [6] the user added the Shalimar gardens of Indian administered Kashmir which is a clear pov my edits are not wrong if you don’t agree go ahead and protect but I will make sure other users who are not nationalists are aware of this pov pushing and they will remove this pov eventually and by the way this user above has made several sock accounts 86.162.66.87 (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

socks of dewan357 what are you going to do with his socks? blocked would be nice forever would be nice 86.151.125.218 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want proof I have it 86.151.125.218 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Block on 66.84.180.192/27

It was too narrow. This was made earlier today. It is very clear that the entire /24 is available to this user and as far as I can tell is the only range he ever uses (and I could not find any other edits in the /24 range by other individuals in the gadget add on). There are edits from this IP that go back to May on the address that are the same. Could you unblock the /27 and instead block 66.84.180.0/24?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, 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 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

Hi again! I think that this is Nangparbat based on the edit summaries of "Indian nationalist" and IP range. Would you mind taking a look?

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

editing on these articles:

• Mughal Empire
• Shalimar Gardens (Lahore)

Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo 1RR violated

Hi Nishkid64, I didn't come to you for baby sittings but I'm not familiar with wikipedia's reporting tools. I came here because you seem to be active on Kosovo and since you have banned me for a month (ban still in power, until September 3rd) on Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo, I cannot participate. I just wanted to let you know that the 1RR has just been violated by User:Cinéma_C on Kosovo without discussing first. Thank you. kedadial 17:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the wikitravel template that User:Cinéma_C has removed without discussing first, is present on other articles as well, such as: Albania, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, etc. Thank you. kedadial 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no 1RR violation on Kosovo. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is:

"All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page."
Talk:Kosovo

And according to this, it's you who placed it under 1RR parole. Thank you. kedadial 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What if

If a user has more than one account, but he/she just use them to create new articles and edit the right way. Will those accounts be blocked? 207.233.67.8 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One account per person, except in extenuating circumstances. Many administrators have a non-admin account, that is declared and linked directly to the main account, that they can use on public computers without the risk of their admin tools falling into the wrong hands. Most users have absolutely no reason to have multiple accounts. Also, see WP:SOCK#LEGIT --King Öomie 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[7] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible IP used by Brexx

Are you able to check if 98.211.38.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is in any way related to the recently blocked Brexx accounts? The MO for the IP seems to be the same, even though the WHOIS doesn't look like the usual Brexx IP or proxy. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed, hardblocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How about 64.69.90.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy, blocked. It's him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

98.237.218.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you check 195.240.125.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), please? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Open proxy. Blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity on the Kushan Empire article?

Hi! I notice you have been involved with the blocking of User:Dewan357 so I thought I should alert you to recent activities on the Kushan Empire page. I really hope someone will investigate and do something to stop the edit warring there. Here is the most recent note I have just added to the Kushan Empire Discussion Page:

Would someone please investigate? Is this a sockpuppet?

Someone using the IP 159.91.18.154 keeps changing the opening paragraph of this article to make it sound as if the Kushan Empire was originally formed in ancient India. The changes are extremely similar to those made earlier by User:Dewan357 who has been blocked recently for "edit warring" on other articles. This IP:159.91.18.154 is apparently located at the Trenton State College in New Jersey which is of interest as Dewan:357 claims on his User page to be "a present or former student of The College of New Jersey". Now, "The College of New Jersey" was previously known as the "Trenton State College" - so they are the same place.

Soon after User:Dewan357 was blocked, edit changes from IP:159.91.18.154 started happening here. It seems more than coincidental that such similar edits seem to be coming from people connected with the same institution and continue via an anonymous IP after the original user has been blocked. I suspect that a sockpuppet is involved here but I don't know how to follow this up. Can anyone else please check this to see if I am right? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your consideration,

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, all that editing occurred before I had blocked Dewan357. For the record, that anonymous editing was why I blocked him in the first place. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Admistratour

It seems like a single-purpose sock-puppet. Its edits are mostly for changing sourced information to undermine the influence of Arabic on Persian vocabulary. Alefbe (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the socking. User warned. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Herbert L. Becker

Hi, could you put an indef semiprotect on this article please? An IP is constantly removing key details from the text. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewan

He's reverting a banned editor right???? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was. But he made no indication that he knew that and instead continued to edit war on multiple pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw he double dipped against John Hill as well. Too bad. Can you check Silent Billy (talk · contribs) a stack of socks have been saying on Australia that we are a soccer power. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by (socks/meatpuppets/friends of) Nangparbat on my User Page

User:Iamsaysiam000, User:Logiccostsmoney, User:Foodforthought009, and User:Theredanomoly all have vandalized by talk page.

Vandal edits

• Foodforthough009 (this user also claims to have taken part in terrorism),
• Theredanomaly
• Logiccostsmoney
• Iamsaysiam000

Can all these accounts be disciplined (preferably blocked) and can my user and talk pages be semiprotected for the maximum length of time it can be semiprotected (indefinite would be great)

Thanks and Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Completed by YellowMonkey Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Although I respect your decision to topic ban me for a week, I would like to respectfully disagree. There are several reasons for this, and if you'll let me, I'd like to address them.

First of all, the disputed template was added some 4 days before I reverted it, thus making my edit a revert. I believe the Kosovo article currently has a 1 revert policy, i.e. 1 revert per week. Before I reverted this edit, I edited (not reverted) the Kosovo article 2 weeks ago, and my last revert was long before that. If you have decided to revert my edit solely because I did not explain on the talk page (although I did explain it shortly in the edit summary - granted, it may have not been sufficient as the rules warrant), I have to add that the user who added the template didn't discuss the inclusion of such a template which is very one-sided. Eu.stefan simply added it, without a word written on the talk page, not even in the edit summary. If it is my duty to thoroughly explain every revert of a user's edit that even wasn't explained on the talk page, I will respect this new rule.

However, we all know Kosovo is an article under probation and the template was in direct violation of Wikipedia's neutral policy. The template described Kosovo as bordering Serbia - directly implying that Kosovo can not be considered as a part of Serbia, even though some (or better said, the majority of) countries still consider it that way. We all know that there is no more room for discussion of whether Kosovo is a country or a province, but this template is firmly supporting one side, the side that thinks that Kosovo, the country, borders Serbia, the separate country next to it.

Furthermore, it is already well and, thanks to Wikipedia consensus, neutrally explained which countries or regions Kosovo borders in the introduction. It is said that Kosovo borders the region of Central Serbia - and indeed it does, regardless of whether Kosovo is viewed as a country or province. Saying that Kosovo borders Serbia would just open another Pandora's box, which I attempted to avert. If you still believe your decision to ban me because of an act I sincerely did in good faith was rightful, I will steer clear of Kosovo related articles for a week and bear in mind this new rule I wasn't aware of before. Thanks, --Cinéma C 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The requirement is that you discuss any content reversion. See the talk page and the edit notice. You were already on thin ice, pursuant to the warning I had given you earlier about your actions on Talk:Kosovo. If you had simply left a note on the talk page, you wouldn't have been topic banned. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So let me just get this straight - even if I'm reverting a user who left no words on the talk page, I should write why I reverted him on the talk page? Something like "Hi everyone, I reverted this user because the geographic location was a part of very one-sided POV. It's already well described in the intro" which I pretty much already wrote in the edit summary? Wouldn't that heavily clog up the talk page, I mean... explaining every single reversion of previously unexplained edits? --Cinéma C 00:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me the truth

You are B.L. Nguyen right? :-) Truth Lover81 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone you know? this obviously isn't a new user- he modified your Header template to hard-code the {{Sock}} template into your page. --King Öomie 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

Since you have occasionally edited articles related to global warming, I strongly urge you no longer to take part in checkusering (or blocking) Scibaby sockpuppets. Things are getting very heated in that area and I don't want you to get into trouble. I won't be reporting the sockpuppets to you any more. Thanks for the help you've given in the past but I'd rather not put you at risk. Best - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what harm Short Brigade Harvester Boris thinks could possibly come from applying checkuser to suspected socks of scibaby, or what good could come of ceasing to do so.

Having said that if you still want to be involved, please take a look at A Kut Above You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be acting in the usual scibaby manner, inserting or reinserting contentious edits into articles such as Anthony Watts (blogger) and Ian Plimer, and so on, at a fairly high rate of editing, no significant response on talk pages. --TS 06:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it´s him again. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

...and it's indef'd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul is getting raked over the coals for his informal use of checkuser on Scibaby socks, given that he has also edited the articles where Scibaby is active. Granted there are many subtexts in that case (the longstanding personal animosity between CHL and Raul, etc) but it's very likely that Nishkid could face similar criticism since he also has edited global warming related articles. I just don't want Nishkid to get into trouble. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but I don't see much of an issue here. My participation in GW-related articles and my work with Scibaby are separate. For Scibaby, it's purely block/ban enforcement, while my editing of GW-related articles is for upholding Wikipedia's policies. If I do receive some criticism in the future, I will definitely take everything into consideration. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lance_A._Boyle? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Another? Baelhugger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -Atmoz (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And User: WikiLuvGluv. Too few contribution to be sure, but what is there is suggestive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And User: Stuey85, more obvious, blocked and rollbacked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And there is suspicious IP User: 68.26.29.91, and new User: Esquivali. Welcome back, I hope you had a great weekend ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All confirmed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Footwear

• Predator89223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mwherrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both edit articles about snakes and have a habit of adding entirely unsourced blocks of text. Both use broken English with exactly the same quirky grammatical errors. Both upload images without any author, source or copyright details. Both have ignored repeated warnings. Reminds me of some past socks, but I'm not sure. 85.94.186.91 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Unrelated. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on them anyway. Here's hoping they develop into better editors. 85.94.186.91 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug

Do you think you'll be able to start work on this soon? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't have the time to save this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thx

for taking care of this sock so quickly [8]. I am wondering if you are tired yet of all the checkusering and scibaby socks :) SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've dealt with worse. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Returning sock

Hi, Nishkid. Regarding this a few days ago, another has turned up with this to say. Of course, I blocked them but there may be some more round the corner. Thanks. Have a good weekend. – B.hotep •talk• 11:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed, as well as The Greatest Show On Earth (talk · contribs). Blocked master indef and underlying IP for 3 months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could I have your opinion on this unblock request, since you've seen the background? Thanks. Rodhullandemu 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat today

• Guarav234 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• 86.153.133.18 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Help requested

Can you comment regarding collateral damage here? thanks, Enigma^msg 05:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a violation of 3Rvt rule?

I think it is, but want to get your assessment before complaining

There has been a fairly long editing dispute at 1953 Iranian coup d'état and unfortunately it has been pretty heated sometimes. Now an editors (Skywriter) has made changes without discussion and along with another editor (Kurdo777), has rvted my rvts

• original
• change without discussion 1
• 2nd time
• 3rd time

anger but not discussion on talk page
plea by me to Skywriter to discuss

This is the second time there's been editing without any discussion or attempt at consensus
(my rvt with explanation, counter rvt, protest with no reply on talk page)
... but that did not go to 3 rvts. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm asking you questions, do this and this qualify as complainable incivility? or should I just keeping warning him not to? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no 3RR. I count two reverts by SkyWriter and one by Kurdo777. A warning from you probably won't mean anything to SkyWriter. I'll tell Sky to comment on content, rather than the contributor. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Caste system among South Asian Muslims

Hello Nishkid64. I have noticed you have locked the above article and am hence asking that you revise a certain portion of it because I cannot do myself. The section on origins states "Sources indicate that the castes among Muslims developed as the result of close contact with Hindu culture and Hindu converts to Islam..." The second paragraph continues with a supposed refutation by Yoginder Sikand. If one reads Yoginder Sikand's article however, you see that it is not actually a refutation of the first paragraph of the origins section. Rather it is a clarification that he believes instead of Hinduism having an influence on Islam and Muslims who had moved there, it was the Hindu converts (to Islam) who retained parts of their culture that "...explains the continued hold of caste-related practices."

The part where he explains "the continued impact of Hindu beliefs and customs on the converts who still remained within a largely Hindu cultural universe and retained many of its associated beliefs and practices" has been completely cut out. So what I would like is for someone to rephrase this section so it does not appear to a reader that there are two opposing viewpoints. You may as well integrate it into the first paragraph. I'm sure you can read Yoginder Sikand's article yourself and grasp what he is trying to say. 69.115.152.137 (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for suggesting the clarification. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)