User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Deletion of Bonsai Articles

Hello,

On October 8th you decided to delete the "Bonsai Stories" article I posted based on the assumption that it belong to the category of sth "not proven for its significance".

However as you will read here http://Bonsai%20Stories http://bonsaistoriesflashfiction. wordpress. com/about-us/ it may be a blog but it is a direct continuation of Planodion (Vagrant) Literary magazine (more details here Planodion and its significance lies on the fact that it introduced flash stories to the Greek audience and it also opened a new form of writing for Greek writers. The magazine has a lot of history in Greek letters and Bonsai Stories blog is directly linked to it.

So, please reconsider and bring back the page. I'd be willing to hear your instructions about how to improve the page so as to be accepted.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards,

Azimuthio

That isn't a claim of significance. Furthermore, the very fact that it is a simple WordPress blog further substantiates that the website really isn't that important. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Magik (rapper)

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that the same article you deleted earlier has been created again: Magik (rapper). Widr (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'll let the AFD run its course. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Ahmad Abdulla Al Shaikh

Hi,

You deleted my page 'Ahmad Abdulla Al Shaikh'.. would you kindly let me have a copy and tell me why the deletion so i can fix them. i would like to have the page put back up please.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybaaudi (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it was pure spam. I'll email you the content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

...which I currently cannot do, because you have email disabled. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt: FUR

Hi Reaper Eternal!

Thanks again for your GAN reviewing and many suggestions and improvements for Ralph Patt.

Patt invented major thirds tuning, and it is the reason he is notable. I rewrote the FUR for his picture (playing a guitar) to use it also in the M3 tuning article.

Its biographical-warning tag that needs alteration.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the tag. The FUR seems reasonable, but keep in mind that I'm not an image expert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :)

I also put a courtesy notice on the page of the administrator who gave me lumps earlier, because he seems to know a lot about FURs, etc. If you two don't see a problem, then I won't lose sleep.

Thanks for fixing the tag, which requires a 00-rating. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:POVbrigand/list

hey hello!

I would like for you to restore the list of researchers I was working on (I was the original creator of the page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=509786036

Lets agree your conclusion was based on the assumption there was only 1 editor working on it.

That seems the most time efficient way to deal with this.

Thanks!

84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link, sorry I forgot to add it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:POVbrigand/list

thanks,

84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

*taps foot*

:-)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, no. And I certainly won't for IP socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for your response. It isn't what I was looking for but at least you've responded :) It took another administrator on IRC 3 minutes to return the fruits of my many hours of work to me. I'm sorry about that, I didn't think you would respond.

To address the accusations in reverse order:

Being an IP editor I have a very good excuse to have a draft article in another users user space. In any other scenario the article would sit in my own user space and we wouldn't be having this conversation. (or a different one)

Then there is the accusation that I would have committed multiple BLP violations. This was not your motivation for deleting the material and you mention not finding any. May I now reference your posting to show I've not violated anyone? Or is that reading to much into it? Alternatively I can use the notice board review but your post seems more to the point. Unless it doesn't say what I think it says of course.

Thanks,

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Use a bullet list and {{hat}} for better readability and impact.--Tznkai (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter anymore. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He will not be the only one who has gone. There are a few others (possibly including myself) who have had enough as a consequence of this out-of-process decision. En-WP is fucked as a community even if not necessarily as a project. The PC brigade, who mostly do more talking than working, are winning this game. And, increasingly, I do think it is a game. It has been touch-and-go for me for a while but this may well be the last straw. I won't be missed but others will. - 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

I see that your userbox page is listed at CAT:RESTORE. Should it be? Peridon (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with you, but I also wonder why 28bbytes is indexed under a small umbrella ☂ and not under a 2. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because my userbox page contains a userbox which automatically populates CAT:RESTORE. 28bytes' userpage is indexed as an umbrella because he used forced indexing in the category (code: [[Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|☂]]). Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ta. I worked the userbox one out after I'd switched off, but the brolly was still puzzling me. Peridon (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Reaper Eternal. You have new messages at Hairrr's talk page.
Message added 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hair^Talk 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

buchanan high school

Someone vandalized the buchanan high school page and I was reversing the edits. I'm not sure why you reversed my edits as the edits I reversed are obviously vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.196.92 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't me. That was Sriharsh1234 (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback right

Hi Reaper External,

Thanks a lot for your kind action of granting rollback right for my account and I promise to follow the standard guidelines that you listed in my talkpage. With regards AshLey ^Msg 08:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archive bot

FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Who

Who is Tim98Seven a sock of? Nobody Ent 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't know who is creating them. But he seems related to Bunogo Huntsman (talk · contribs), which was making closely-related edits. Both were checkusered, and while other socks were found, the master remains a mystery. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't obvious (to me) troll. Nobody Ent 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding the Tim98Seven account was checkusered. This indicates it wasn't. From my perspective: 1) you made an arguable call related to a post on a page in which you were involved, and then 2) when queried about the block, you prevaricated. If there is additional information I should know before pursuing any possible further action, I'd appreciate it if you'd provide it. Nobody Ent 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It was, and results were inconclusive. And my post above was made because I believed Bunogo to be the same user based on behavior, and Bunogo was confirmed to have socks. There is nothing more to add, so feel free to seek action as you see fit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked for the original CU although I had no idea of who, and it was granted. The idea that this looked like a sockpuppet was supported by Reaper, myself and the checkuser. Sometimes we are mistaken, but it wasn't a single person's opinion, it was at least three. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Who was the CU? Nobody Ent 01:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs). Why? Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking at least two more agree, but I won't speak for them. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've commented at WP:AN. Your original block was fine. The only problem is that you unblocked an alternate account that is editing in areas that alternate accounts aren't permitted to edit (Arbcom and RFCs). With your blessing, I'll reblock. I don't want to fall afoul of WP:WHEELWAR.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't decry it, but I'm not going to be reblocking him either. Good luck with whatever you choose to do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Kww, please actually read the reasonings given by Tim - he no longer has access to his original account (or so he claims). If it's the case, what you're proposing isn't really applicable, as he's not using "an alternative" when he couldn't access the original. Thus, even though I'm not the original blocking Admin, personally I think it'd be erroneous in doing so. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think this boils down to the credibility of the claims, and at least three admin with at least some SPI experience are saying the behavior is 180 degrees out of sync for the claimed connection. If the community allows us to block a dozen or more people per day based on being sure two editors are really one, using behavioral evidence, surely they will accept that we can determine that two people are really two. This means the user is being deceptive in the justification of the account, which falls under "avoiding scrutiny" I'm sure. The behavior here is strongly that of someone who is either blocked or under sanction and avoiding sanction/scrutiny. Add to the new evidence that the previous account they claim is highly unlikely, and you have a sock with an unknown master, but a sock nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

AN notice

I've commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dennis_Brown.27s_reverting_of_.27socks.2Ftrolls.27_using_Twinkle Nobody Ent 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cumulus cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skew (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) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I'm giving out cookies to all of the Admins I see today :3 Enjoy! Meva / CHCSPrefect - (Prefect Helpdesk) 10:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

• Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

• Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

• Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

• Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

• News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

• WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As promised...

For closing Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reforming_dispute_resolution so swiftly. Thanks for taking the time to read over it and determine the result. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Please Give me the right of Reviewer if i don't have experience then take back this right from me, Thank You Greatuser (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have the experience necessary with Wikipedia just yet. Furthermore, this is not a "never" decline; this is a "not just yet" decline, so feel free to re-request when you have had more experience editing Wikipedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Darmstadt linear accelerator SPI

We seem to be having issues with making this work. It needs cleanup, but I don't know how... Help me fix this? Hamtechperson 15:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already fixed it, and I requested checkuser since there are likely to be more sockpuppets. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for changing my rights! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref tags

Thanks for that - I was baffled... Peridon (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thank you! You were quick. Widr (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Horror novel"

Sorry to bother you with this but I"m not sure what to do. Today you deleted Under the bleachers which you correctly described as a horror novel. I completely agree. The exact same content has just been recreated at User:Group32012; I know this isn't appropriate material for Wikipedia but I don't know what to do about a user page. Could I trouble you to do whatever is necessary? Many thanks in advance for anything you think is appropriate. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've zapped that too as another application of WP:IAR. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt attention to this AND the reference to the correct policy, which will help me next time! Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dan Howell

After reverting a bunch of Dan Howell vandalism, I found myself at the edit filter request page. I am fascinated by this. I'd like to work with edit filter related things but don't know where to start. It all seems so complicated (at least at first glance), what can I do to dive into this a bit further. Just request filters? I would have done so with the Dan Howell vandalism had I known more about the edit filter at the time. What can I do to get my feet wet? --Sue Rangell 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Generally, edit filter manager is reserved for administrators and other long-term users of Wikipedia, who probably could become administrators if they stood at RFA. Additionally, the usergroup requires a strong knowledge of regex, so yes, edit filters can be very complicated. However, if you find something that you believe could benefit by having an edit filter crafted for it, feel free to request it at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.

In response to the "Dan Howell" / "danisnotonfire"-related vandalism, that would be a good thing to request filtering since it is already supposed to be filtered out. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for protecting my page, I was going crazy trying to keep up with all of the vandalism! Sue Rangell 02:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Padalecki Problem

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me my mistake, I'm not very well-versed in editing. As of about ten minutes ago, I could not find any Wikipedia page for GISHWHES; if a page was set up specifically for it, would future teams editing the page for the challenge be valid, or am I wrong and it would still be considered spam? Grady.hopper (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that editing nonsense or humor into Wikipedia is unacceptable on any article. For the purposes of your scavenger hunt, you may wish to get the coordinators to create their own private wiki that you and the other contestants can mess around with as much as you please. (See http://www.mediawiki.org for more information on how to do that.) Alternatively, you could edit a document on your computer. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your time and suggestions, hopefully they will be viable. If I can get the attention of a man who makes several million dollars more a year than I do... Fingers crossed.Grady.hopper (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rainbow Dash loves girls

I happened to come across that username and noticed it was blocked, don't you think it's a bit harsh to call that username 'completely inappropriate'? I sense homophobia on your part.  Fiossa 20:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My decline has nothing to do with homophobia. It has to do with the obvious age implication of "girl". Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

• News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs

• WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History

• Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live

• Featured content: On the road again

• Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The duck test

With respect, protecting this page seems extremely premature. There was one sock puppet edit which I rapidly reverted, and you blocked the offending account. If BA created more socks and kept at that page, I could see it but protecting after just one act of vandalism? Could you explain this please? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The protection was meant to be temporary just to deny him his target, especially given that he is the only non-autoconfirmed user to ever edit that page. I accidentally forgot to set the expiry time, which will now be remedied. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• (no talk back necessary; I'll follow and respond if inclined) I still don't think it necessary, and preemptively protecting even for a short period is I think wrong. Your intent is good, but the outcome...I can't agree with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting bad-faith reports

Hello, I have been archiving the bad faith reports, in the future, should I just delete them then? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 19:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I always just delete them. There's no point in looking through scores of bogus reports. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, good with me. Would it be okay if I removed the false positives from the most recent archives (after all, it makes sense to only have actual false positives in there for future reference, not bad faith reports)? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste the time, but it's entirely up to you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

sup

may i ask wot was da problem wid ma edit ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie55667788 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize articles; see the new contributor's help page for information on constructive editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For the dedicated work on our filters! Thanks Reaper Wifione Message 02:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:STiki

I want to use STiki for reverting Vandalism, But How the way to use it please tell me, I already have visited the page Wikipedia:STiki But I didn't get to know the usage of it, Thank You Greatuser (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you stayed away from automated antivandalism tools, given your tendency to rush things. That said, I can't really help you that much because I really don't know how STiki can be acquired. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Then please grant me the rights of Rollbacker Because I am Keen to fight against Vandalism, Please Now I have experience about Wikipedia, and I Really Love to Fight against Vandalism as said if Not experienced take back this right Thank You Greatuser (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No. As I've said before, you need more experience and to slow down. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about, but FYI Worm^TT(talk) 13:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You for protecting the page Greatuser (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please Protect my page back (Semi-Protected) Indefinite Greatuser (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As was pointed out to me on WP:RFPP, userpages are really only protected when requested iff there is is vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BN

I just added a clarification there. Btw, I'd support your RfB, if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. Thanks for the vote of confidence in a future RfB, but I really can't see myself using the 'crat tools for much more than renaming users and closing the occasional (rare now?) RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing Feedback Question

Hi, and thanks for approving my request for Reviewer! I have a question about reviewing Article Feedback. Should I hide only obvious vandalism (for example "ncoinadobco") or should I also hide unconstructive edits such as saying Barack Obama is 111 years old in a Barack Obama feedback? Oversight requests are much more simple and easier to understand. Could you give me a little insight on this? Thank you! Vacation9 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found this. Sorry about that! Vacation9 (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My socks

Hi. Just to ask if it would be OK to redirect the userpages of all my sockpuppets to my own userpage now I'm unbanned & possibly to courtesy delete the category/blank my SPI page ?

I plan to stay away from XfD for a bit anyway, but am I right in thinking that I am under no editing restrictions ? Cheeers. --Claritas § 08:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is generally no. SPIs and the related categories are generally only deleted when the request was filed in obvious bad faith. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for an example of an SPI on a former arbiter, which turned up no socks, and yet was not deleted.)

I'd agree that if you had problems with XFDs in the past, staying away is a very good idea. You are under no new editing restrictions now; however, if any were active when you were site-banned, those are still active. For example, if you were previously topic-banned from race and intelligence, you would still be topic-banned from that area. Hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

I left a comment on your mentor page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My User Page

edit 1) absolutely correct. edit 2) wasn't your comment to delete. EeBee 23:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I put it back. I just figured you probably didn't want a talk page message on your userpage. You could also have just reverted me, since it is your userpage. Good luck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Longest Wikipedia Article listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Longest Wikipedia Article. Since you had some involvement with the Longest Wikipedia Article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TB (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from above)

Thank You in advance for checking the misapplication of "vandalism" to the edits of Michael Bloomberg, regarding Taxes and his newswire in China and satellites. Rollback the Rollback, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.37.133.218 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This user 113.37.133.218 appears to be vandalizing the Michael Bloomberg page with various POV edits, and ignoring 3RR --Sue Rangell 05:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps try not adding unsourced speculations to biographies of living people once your block expires? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Any plans for the future?

I know I'm hardly a prestigious editor, but I've been comparing your work to that of several 'Crats, and in many cases you exceed this. You are an incredibly active admin, and I was wondering if at any point in the future you would consider a nomination for bureaucratship. Just a question. Cheers! T.I.M^(Contact) 05:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I really can't see myself using the tools for bot-related work, and I really doubt I'd pass an RFB. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Icarly

From what I understand it's a TV show the first evidence I saw was asking for featured article status for Icarly, I assumed the name Icarly translator was a COI and connected to that company or product. Kind WP:Coatrackish. If I'm wrong sorry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The user's edits do not promote iCarly in a pure spam/vandalism manner which would be appropriate to report to AIV; rather, User:ICarlytranslator seems to be a fan of the TV show. Most of his or her edits have focused on Greek-English translations, hence the "translator" part of the username. WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, since this isn't an article. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for dealing with that troll. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi, could you send me a copy of the deleted article My Own Planet please. Many thanks Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC).

Emailed it to you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dan Bongino

Yesterday, you full-protected Daniel Bongino after my request on RFPP (I am marginally involved, so I refrained from doing it myself). Could you do the same for Dan Bongino? A different SPA is using that as another way to get around consensus. No offense to Mr. Bongino, but he does not meet our notability requirements, and losing the election today will not get him any closer to doing so. (I'm asking you rather than going to RFPP because you are familiar with the issue, having dealt with it yesterday.) Thanks. Horologium (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

"The edit summary was a reference to himself in the third person" Seriously? I'm afraid to say that that's an utterly shameful twisting of credibility. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that he had identified the account as his about thirty-five minutes before he made that edit summary? That isn't exactly the edit of somebody attempting to sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, but as you well know filing the identity on a back alley of the admin space is not the first place people will look during a discussion. To then posting an edit summary distancing yourself from that identity, well I—and most users here–would consider that pulling a fast one, at the very least. It is nothing more than a technical "cover your arse" move in case your found out later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt that. When the accounts got renamed to very similar names, everybody would have noticed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Came across a "move" you did when looking at the history of Retrieval-induced forgetting during a GA review

Looking through the article's history for the GA review, I saw this diff. (cur | prev) 12:36, August 20, 2012‎ Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,722 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Reaper Eternal moved page User:I Jethrobot/Retrieval-induced forgetting to Retrieval-induced forgetting without leaving a redirect: Sandbox moved to article) (undo)

Was the article being edited in user-space prior to that? Was an admin-move requested so as not to leave a redirect behind? Just making sure I dot all my 'i's and cross all my 't's. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with explaining my admin move. I Jethrobot (talk · contribs) initially began the article as a userspace sandbox. He then wanted to move the draft to articlespace, but Retrieval-induced forgetting had been created as a redirect, so I had to delete it to move the draft over it. The history of the redirect is below:

• (del/undel) (diff) 10:51, 20 August 2012 . . I Jethrobot (talk | contribs | block) (224 bytes) (Adding speedy deletion to move article.)
• (del/undel) (diff) 23:50, 5 October 2006 . . STBot (talk | contribs | block) (59 bytes) (re-categorisation per CFD using AWB)
• (del/undel) (diff) 20:51, 17 June 2006 . . Cogpsych (talk | contribs | block) (57 bytes) (Redirecting to Memory inhibition)

I hope this helps. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, because I need to ensure there are no "unresolved edit wars" and so on in the article's history. Thanks again. Churn and change (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

• Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

• News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

• Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

• Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

• Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers. --Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there Reaper Eternal, I hope you're doing well! Just a heads up, I've mentioned you here. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and I see someone else has already dealt with it. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Uw-softestblock‎‎

Hey, I really like your work (particularly at RFPERM), and I'm not gearing up to give you a hard time, but I reverted most of your changes here. I have no illusions about what I'm doing being at best controversial and at worst a losing fight, but fight I will, because I've got a lot of experience with this work and I'd like for others to see the data I'm generating before people draw conclusions. What's the most important bit that really needs to be in there that I left out in your view? - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll get started with my argument. The first assumption that people make when an admin does something unusual with usernames is that they must be either a hawk or a dove ... that they're either mostly concerned that we're letting people get away with harming Wikipedia, or they're mostly concerned that we're biting newbies. I think these are both valid (and sometimes correct) positions, but I'm mostly concerned with experimentation, data, and consistency, not with any one outcome. So: I've noticed in the past, and I'm still noticing, that many hits from Filter 149 aren't getting blocked, even when it's fairly clear that someone is choosing a username to represent, and adding links for, a group, organization or website ... I know this used to be a concern for "hawks", and they'd probably like to reduce the downside, but they've gotten too much pushback in the past when they tried to block with as little to go on as this. Likewise, I know there are a fair number of people who think the language in uw-softerblock makes assumptions about bad behavior that aren't necessarily appropriate ... and even if they are appropriate in the larger scheme of things, it may not be stuff that's polite to say when greeting someone. What I'd really like is to come up with a way to satisfy everyone, and there's at least a chance we can do that.

On leaving out the "if I've made a mistake, here's what you do" ... the solution IMV is not to make a big deal of it, and not to make a mistake ... it's not hard to figure out whether a username could possibly represent a person's name or allowable alias, and if I'm not sure, then I don't use uw-softestblock. (And why are we putting the burden on someone who has 5 seconds of exposure to Wikipedia's processes to figure out if anything has gone wrong and to fix it, rather than on someone who's been working with this stuff for years?) In RL, if some offical starts telling you "You have the right to ...." after they've taken some action, you're not likely to think "Oh they're being so nice to me", you're likely to think they're accusing you of some kind of flagrant violation. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I discussed my approach at WT:U#Opinions requested, if that helps. Also, I don't have any goal here of getting rid of other current templates or telling admins what templates to use; I'm just creating a new template, looking for feedback, and experimenting with it ... and hopefully I won't be the only one using it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of my fixes was to fix the link to the account creation page (which, I think, should be restored, since you are linking to a MediaWiki redirect rather than the actual page), and a couple others were copyedits and grammar tweaks that I really don't care too much about.

Looking at the diff of your edits, it doesn't seem to alter my one link, which I copied from uw-softerblock. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

However, I don't think that it is particularly fair to blocked users to not leave them a way of requesting unblocking, even when we are extremely careful to not make inappropriate blocks, because somebody will eventually make such a block.

I understand that this is not cut and dried, and others make different arguments, but here's how I see it. A username block shortly after account creation for having a username that represents a group, organization or website is unlike every other block ... it's not that they knew that they were doing something wrong, and have been convicted, and are entitled to their day in court ... it's just not one of the allowable usernames on this website. Every user community allows some usernames and disallows others. Patrollers have found over the years that such names can be a sign that bad editing may follow ... but picking such a username isn't bad behavior by itself, and I would prefer to avoid any language that gives the impression they've done something wrong, that starts us off on the wrong foot. I also think it's counterproductive to tell them that there's an appeals process for this particular infraction ... as if other people are being granted special permission (which we will of course deny to this user) ... that can't make them feel better ... and on top of that, it's not true, we don't allow anyone to represent themselves that way.

One common scenario is when the admin leaves {{softerblock}} but forgets to enable account creation and disable the autoblock. This effectively prevents the user from creating another account and leaves them no opportunity to appeal. I can see your point about not leaving the {{unblock-un}} option if they have next to no edits. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I use a tweaked version of easyblock, namely, User:Dank/tempeasyblock.js, which does everything with one click, so it can't disable account creation if I'm choosing the uw-softestblock tab. I wouldn't mind keeping an eye on any admins who choose to make use of softestblock and make sure they're also using a failsafe blocking script. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it is right to not leave users a way of appeal. You'd have to monitor every single block, and, given that ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) alone often blocks fifty proxies or more in ten minutes, I don't think that you could. Furthermore, I don't think that most admins use the easyblock script, so they could still inadvertently hardblock the user. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to wait till the end of the month when I had more data, but if it's important to you, I'll stop using the template for two days (and wait to see if I get any complaints or anyone re-creates the deleted pages ... so far, so good), then continue the discussion I started at WT:U, and either discontinue the template entirely, keep it as is, or move it to my userspace, depending on the results of the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okey doke, I just left my argument on the template language at WT:U. You make a good point that some admins may screw up and disable account creation by mistake when using this template, so that the user wouldn't be able to give feedback; I suggest we tackle that problem if softestblock survives the current discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitration assistance needed for La Luz del Mundo

Hey asshole I need your help.

Hi I'm RidjalA and I came across your page after searching for an admin who might best be able to help arbitrate some sensitive, albeit controversial, topics regarding La Luz del Mundo and its respective issues being discussed here. I read on your page "Make articles, not wikidrama", and I figured your seemingly level-headedness and good humor would be helpful for settling some disputes. For these reasons any opinion from you as an outside voice would be immensely insightful, and if they don't help settle some disputes, I hope they at least help to alleviate tensions.

I also have a concern that two users, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, I feel have been tag teaming me WP:TAGTEAM to establish their consensus in dismissing my points of view. They've complicitly reverted some or all of the content of my edits, to the point where it's become problematic and my discussion on the talk page just doesn't help anymore (it's seriously not funny anymore). I can't contribute a single thing without having both these users bombard the page with dozens of revisions like so, distorting my edit for the benefit of the church {frowns}.

They are increasingly turning my revisions to look more like this, where sections which have been reviewed by independent Third Opinions are being deleted, and replaced with content as if to ignore outside opinions to censor me and promote their church (that's my hypothesis). I especially drew the line when one of these two users violated the 3 revert rule this morning {frowns again}. For the sake of being the better person, I've abstained from further editing/reverting regardless of my justifiability, until this issue is addressed, and thus here I am requesting your most valuable input.

I would immensely appreciate your insight in regards to this matter, thanks and have a wonderful day (btw I was just testing the thickness of your skin at the beginning, much respects XD ) RidjalA (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot contribute neutrally in that topic area. You'll need to ask somebody else or pursue one of the methods of dispute resolution. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about reviewers

I understand the first two abilities reviewing gives a user, but what does "Administrate article feedback" mean? I have done a quick search but haven't found anything about it. Thanks again for making me a reviewer! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you can hide vandalistic or BLP-violating article feedback with reviewer or rollback. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With your info I did find this guide, and in particular, this section. Thanks! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks

for your quick work on the edit notices. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Image backlinks

It's a bit silly sometimes, particularly since File:AnonEditWarning.png being a fairly generic image of a key might be {{PD-ineligible}}, but images licensed CC-BY-* or GFDL (or pretty much anything in common use besides CC-0 and public domain) require the backlink for attribution and/or required notification that the image is in fact licensed under the license. Anomie⚔ 21:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually wasn't really aware that the link was used as the attribution. Thanks for fixing it though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, otherwise we'd have to put "image by so-and-so, under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license" all over the place. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, it's FCYTravis, not NYCTravis. :) --Rschen7754 05:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

HeadMouse sockpuppetry

Unfortunately, HeadMouse appears to be at it again. He just started up Crazy Blue Eyes2 (talk · contribs) and is posting on the talk page of Kralizec! (talk · contribs) now. He seems to be under the misguided assumption that I'm an admin, which I'm currently not (would like to be sometime, and even if I was, I'd be too involved with this editor to make any use of that extra bit). If there's any assistance you can provide, it'd be appreciated. I did start up a new SPI for the new sock, but it's not coming up in the SPI main page. --McDoobAU93 23:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that account too. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

• News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

• Featured content: The table has turned

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

• WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Reaper Eternal/Election thoughts

I noticed your evaluation of me here and I thought I should attempt to address your concern. I rather doubt that this will do anything to change your opinion, but regardless of that I felt I should say all of this anyway just because it needed to be said. I'll start off by saying that you are 100% correct...the exchange between Joefromrandb and I was ridiculous. Between good, bad, and worse I ended up choosing the bad option, and that is my fault alone. I am not proud of this; it was most certainly not my most shining moment on Wikipedia. I can say with certainty that I will not allow it to happen again, much in the way that I have not allowed the situation brought up at my RfA to happen again. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've amended my vote accordingly to "weak oppose". I think you're fine as an admin and an editor, but I still don't really think you'd do well as an arbitrator. I also really can't see any examples of dispute resolution that you have done that would counter the discourse on User talk:Joefromrandb. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair enough assessment for me. To be honest, I really don't have much history with dispute resolution. If I don't get elected to the committee I plan on trying to get more involved in the process anyway, and depending on how things go in between I would consider running again next year. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your user page

I just wanted to let you know (you are probably already aware) that I reverted an IP edit to your user page that appeared to be a test edit – it messed up your userboxes. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Thanks for giving me the tips, but I decided that I do not want to grant permission for being autopatrolled while creating new articles.--Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't grant 'autopatrolled' to anybody since you are not an administrator. I enabled 'autopatrolled' on your account to reduce the workload on people patrolling new articles. Are you asking me to remove it from your account? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please removed it from my account. Wait, what happens when my account is enabled by autopatrolled?. I already read and understand about it, but is this a good or a bad idea?--Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

When 'autopatrolled' is enabled on your account, it automatically marks all new articles that you create as patrolled. In other words, this tells people that they don't need to check your articles to be sure they are not vandalism, nonsense, or other inappropriate content. In general, it is a good idea to leave it enabled, although if you don't want it, I don't mind removing it again. It won't change your editing experience whether it is enabled or not. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've also noticed that I have an automatic modifier for the categories. I just checked them a while ago. Is this an effect of enabling "autopatrolled"?--Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, thats due to WP:HOTCAT being turned on for all users. There's a thread on WP:VPT about it. Legoktm (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Guide

I added your guide to {{ACE2012}}. If you didn't want it there you can feel free to revert me. Hot Stop (Talk) 15:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I think User:Ashermadan is not a sockpuppet as checkuser has said but please consider his personal attacks and aggression toward user and even sysop's.Thanks---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 20:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI isn't really the location for making blocks based on personal attacks. It's just used to identify sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Offensive username contest

My sole reason for filing the SPI was to look for sleepers; I definitely understand that there's no good reason to go to SPI just to see if two blocked users are related. If you can ensure that we've gotten all sleepers, or if you can find some other way to get a checkuser's eyes on this user, I'll have no objection to deletion, but please don't delete until/unless one of those two things happens. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

He has already been checkusered and the sleeper accounts were blocked (they were also obvious ducks), so checkuser isn't going to give us anything more. I can say with near 100% certainty that he isn't those people listed on WP:ANI—he has been actively attacking admins for far, far longer than either of those two have been around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you say that, I've gone ahead and deleted it to save you the effort. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)