User talk:NativeForeigner/Archive 2

... on your election to Arbcom! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats also. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner; My interest is in starting a review for an FA or GA medical article on Wikipedia which has not been reviewed in over 2 years. Would you have any interest in looking at a medical article for review? BillMoyers (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially. You'd have to leave me details as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner; Thanks for getting back to me. The situation is that a group of articles dealing with medical pages in mental health and psychiatry are in need of being upgraded since the new major diagnostic manual "DSM-5" has been released earlier this year. I started with Page:Shizophrenia and posted the list of 15 needed upgrades and transition edits there on its Talk page. The 15 essential DSM-5 transition edits have been posted for about two weeks now and a recent flurry of activity has died down now without addressing the larger part of the essentially needed transition edits. It would be very helpful and useful if an experienced editor like yourself could help to start the FA review process (last done 3 yrs ago) to make sure that everything is done on the up-and-up. Does it sound interesting? BillMoyers (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably better off with another user. I'm not super familiar with these processes, especially wilth medical articles. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Message received. The strict medical article was tough and I see your point. I just completed an "action item" list for another much less strenuous FA page for "Major Depressive" and would make a similar appeal to you for it in initiating a review. This is more a compassion issue for wiki-readers since it has over one million suffers each year and would benefit from an up-to-date wiki page. This would be a learning experience for me also in terms of the processes, and I would be much more comfortable with someone looking at the 8 items alongside me strictly as a check-list. Your wikipedia experience is much higher than mine. If its possible let me know? BillMoyers (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably best off looking at the applicable WikiProject. Look on the talk page of the article and post on the takl page asking if someone can go through it with you. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. This is the list of Wikiprojects associated with "Major depressive";

WikiProject Psychology [show](Rated FA-class, Top-importa

WikiProject Neuroscience [show](Rated FA-class, High-importance)

WikiProject Medicine / Translation [show](Rated FA-class, Top-importance)

WikiProject History of Science [show](Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)

WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology [show](Rated FA-class, Low-importance)

WikiProject Death / Suicide [show](Rated FA-class, Low-importance)

WikiProject icon [show]Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5

Since the Talk pages for the Psy articles are very, very low traffic pages, did you mean to list these on some kind of village pump somewhere? Given this list of wikiprojects, what is the best place to list it from your viewpoint? BillMoyers (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Try WT:MEDICINE NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, NativeForeigner. I'm stopping by your talk page just so you are aware of this, this and this. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a general note I'm going to be heavily reducing the amount of SPI Work I do as I've been elected to arbcom, and that in itself is as very large commitment. If you have a query regarding a case I would be most familiar with, or have recently actioned, go ahead. If it is a more general question regarding SPI, I'd prefer you leave your query with one of our highly competent SPI Clerks. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You left a message on his talk page [1] at 2013-12-27T22:14:31‎, 23 and a half hours ago. He's made ten edits since then but it looks as though he hasn't acted on, or responded to, your message. @BillMoyers: —rybec 21:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pumpie. I caught another one! Given that it occurred again in less than a month I recommend considering pending changes and move protection. --Marianian^(talk) 14:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And again: see same link as before. I recommend a ANI entry for the incident to try and find a long term solution. --Marianian^(talk) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You're much more familiar with him than I am. Would you mind posting on ANI? NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am pretty late to the Pumpie malarkey, albeit I have gained the ability to spot suspicious edits easily, such as naming conventions and relationship between the skill and the age of the account. I will ask Mark Arsten the same question because he might know more than me.   --Marianian^(talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Diff provided. The suspected sock has edit warred on the article at least twice before within the past year (User:Caughtinmosh88 and User:Abomination85), in the same manner (no edit summaries), and dealing with the exact same topic (album sales figures). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	Square barnstar
	In the memorable words of NE Ent, thanks for being the best oxymoron on the English.Wikipedia! ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Quite memorable indeed (and well played on your part) NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

TCG claims that DrummerSP is not him and HNK claims that Unorginal is not him. I have been watching out on Hoshi for a while, but I only discovered Tre just now, they were also both blocked on 31 August 2013, this makes me wonder... TDFan2006 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please bring it to somebody else. I'm quite busy right now with a multitude of things, and don't have time to do it justice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. TDFan2006 (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I meant to look into it but found myself short of time. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite short in time as well. I'm actually editing at school. TDFan2006 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

 

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Thank you for "agreed"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

On the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now, - a homage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer   Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

•   12george1 (submissions) and   TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
•   Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
•   WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
•   TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
•   Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [2], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I just opened Recent changes for a routine patrol and surprise! I see half the page is filled with you blocking numerous spambots in seconds ;) Job well done! That's what one calls a Defender of the Wiki :) -TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Still cleaning up after this account. Just wondering, when you block s.o. for hoaxing, why not revert the hoaxes? — kwami (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I generally try to when I notice it. I'm not sure why I didn't in that case, I'm sorry for not having caught it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [3]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

Could you take a look at this? New suspected account, the same phrases, sources, arguments, sentences etc. [4] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen my email yet, but I started a cu.wiki page for him: here. INeverCry 18:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw it. I'll look into fleshing it out. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,
Should i leave a note under Qjahid's entry in the AfD discussion that this user was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Usaeedi and was blocked? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Or should i best wait for an admin to do so? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, link to the spi. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One last thing,
Am i authorized to add the sockpuppet headnote on Qjahid's user page? Because i'd still prefer an admin like you to perform these tasks, not me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and i apologize if i kept bothering you about this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I"ve been busy as of late but this really wasn't a big deal :) NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am writing to you for two reasons. 1. You list yourself as willing to perform rangeblocks and 2. your involvement, about ten months ago, in a sockpuppet investigation into 089baby (talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/089baby/Archive), as I feel a rangeblock is necessary for containing his sockpuppetry. Recently he has taken to IP hopping, using registered accounts only for creating articles. All the IP's he's used are in the 36.27.0.0/16 range, with the third number ranging from 192 to 203.

As evidence, I point to the timeline of account usage. From 6 November to 4 January, 9 different accounts of his blocked were blocked in as many weeks, and then he stopped all of a sudden. Assuming I haven't missed any, the next sock wasn't registered until a month later. From 10 January onward, there was dramatic increase in edits to articles frequently edited by 089baby from IP's in the range in question, there having been only around 20 edits to article on Cambodian football (his subject of interest) in all of 2013. Add to that the fact that the only edits made by the two most recent socks Kakalara (talk · contribs) and Nevercare12345 (talk · contribs) were to create the same five articles, with all other edits to these article, except some routine maintenance, coming from IP's in the range.

I have already posted on the Administrators' noticeboard about this, but the post has gone unanswered for two days. Additionally, I have also contacted @Reaper Eternal: and @Someguy1221: who both also have some involvement in this case. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1.   Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2.   Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3.   WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

•   Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
•   Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
•   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To a member of the AC, I urge you to read this that I wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consider_changing_the_thinking_of_Wikipedia._Wikipedia_is_not_the_NSA_spy_agency.

There's been support for Snowden because people are against spying. In Wikipedia, checkusers are spying all the time. Wikipedians who hate other wikipedians sometimes try to falsely brand them as socks and get the checkuser to spy on them....or they just accuse. This poisonous environment got me to stop editing Wikipedia years ago. I thought I'd finally say something.

The key may be for a bunch of people to be considered "wise editors" for a term of a few months. There, they can try to get people to compromise and talk. Wikipedia is not a vote but editors try to make it a vote all the time.

Help make WP a better place and not a spy agency and poisonous den. ComingBackAgain (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly did you change of my edits?^[1] I couldn't find anything AFAIK in your contribs list. --The 4D Government ^(talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The 4D Government. If you click here it will show a list of edits you have made. Most of them are blue and they provide a link, but some of them are grey and crossed-out. Those crossed out ones are the ones that have been redacted. CorporateM (Talk) 22:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I emailed him to this effect. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Awww, sorry I can be a bit of a nosey Talk page stalker. I noticed your comment on the ToU and was just sort of browsing around. CorporateM (Talk) 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's all good, thanks. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. The 4D Government ^(talk) 01:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NativeForeigner...

Thank you for removing the request for my ne page on Barry Quirk to be deleted. Does this mean it's safe, or will there still be a debate of some sort? SophiaMSophiahounslow (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it is certainly not be speedy deleted. It could be brought to articles for deletion, but it hasn't been yet. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And if my preliminary search is correct, he is in fact notable, so will not be deleted. I'll look over the article later and see if I can help. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me with deletion of my article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DesignContest

What I must to do to undelete it?

Hope you will help me. SlavaBest (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@SlavaBest: I can move it into your userspace (see WP:USERFY), and it would be located at User:SlavaBest/DesignContest such that you could porentially improve it. However, your article was deleted due to a reasonably robust consensus it should be deleted due to its failure of WP:N/WP:GNG/WP:NBUSINESS. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, do it. I`ll try to improve it. After improving I need to ask you again to move it back or what?SlavaBest (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Potentially. I do not think that the subject of the article is notable, so it is likely the subject would need to have improved coverage before any article would be accepted. I was mostly concerned you didn't lose access to the article you wrote. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, I lost access to the article, and I understend about coverage. Will try to do it SlavaBest (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You now have access at the link above. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an unblock request at User talk:119.160.118.65, for an open proxy block that you imposed in October. I can find no evidence that the IP address is currently running an open proxy, nor even any sort of proxy, so probably it can be unblocked, but I thought it best to check with you, in case you know something relevant that I don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: According to my notes there was an indefblocked user on it, and an nmap indicated that it was an open proxy. Nmap is coming up negative now, so I agree from that perspective it can be unblocked. However regardless, it seems like it's an IP block on top of what was at one point a huge sockfarm, the unblock request is phrased exactly how the master requested unblock, and I'm inclined to reblock it for shorter duration as a {{checkuserblock}} due to the sheer quantity of disruption I saw from it. I'll look into it a bit more before I do so however. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll leave it in your hands, since you have access to information that I don't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

See here, which is a dead giveaway because of this. Also take note that Picker78 decided to create the Sakis Sg account just two hours after I made this WP:Dummy edit note of WP:Sockpuppetry (or more like one hour afterwards, considering that the hour was almost over when I made that note); I made that note because Drowninginlimbo, who clearly is not new to editing Wikipedia (judging by Drowninginlimbo's editing) commented on a matter that Picker78 cares about. One could state that Picker78 created the Sakis Sg account to throw me off Drowninginlimbo's scent. But there is the fact that Drowninginlimbo's editing style is (or seems) different than Picker78's.

On a side note: NativeForeigner, would you be willing to restore Promiscuous man's talk page so that his confirmation that he is Picker78, and that he will always return, is readily accessible (as in not only accessible to the WP:Administrators)? Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am no one's sockpuppet. I don't know who Picker78 is. The point is that prostitution only comes together with promiscuity. You can't have a non-promiscuous prostitute. The reference to promiscuity needs to exist in the article. You can't classify as prostitute a wife that receives money from her husband. You just have to look at the Merriam-Webster's full definition of prostitution. It clearly writes "promiscuous sexual relations". Sakis Sg (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also take note that in Picker78's latest official sockpuppet case, I mentioned that he consistently returns to certain articles "as different IPs and registered editors to add his preferred wording, WP:Edit war over it, and to deny that he is Picker78; if he ever admits to being Picker78, it is when he is caught." Just like he denied, denied, denied until others confirmed that he is Promiscuous man...which, again, is the reason that I have requested that Promiscuous man's talk page be restored to the public. Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I did very little editing before making an account and it was without an account. This is my only account --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am neither Picker78 or Promiscuous Man. I just saw the edit history as well as the talk page of the Prostitution article and decided to activate my account. I did very little editing too before starting this account. Before judging so easily, you just have to see what the real point is. Can you have a non-promiscuous prostitute? Absolutely no. So, this has to be made clear inside the article. Many women receive money and benefits from their spouses but they are no prostitutes. Sakis Sg (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You must think that I and others are the stupidest people ever. You made your Sakis Sg account a very short time after I noted WP:Sockpuppetry (the note mentioned above). You created a user page for your first edit, and with dots, which immediately shows you as a WP:Sockpuppet or someone very familiar with Wikipedia, considering that the vast majority of brand new Wikipedia editors don't immediately create a user page and certainly never with a dot or multiple dots; such creations are done because such WP:Sockpuppets know that a red-linked user page usually signals that the editor in question is new or otherwise inexperienced with editing Wikipedia, and that experienced Wikipedia editors therefore often think of such accounts in a less favorable way than an experienced registered Wikipedia account. You made edits just to get WP:Autoconfirmed (yeah, you did). You added the same content as Picker78. You WP:Edit war just like Picker78. You deny being Picker78 just like Picker78, even at a WP:CheckUser's talk page. You make the same arguments as Picker78. You sign your username, something that the vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't do, despite the message at the top of the editing space telling them to do so when they are in the process of commenting. And you expect me to believe that you are not Picker78? Stop wasting my and everyone else's time. I know that I stated before that I would no longer entertain your denials. And, really, I should not have revealed to you here in this discussion what easily identifies a WP:Sockpuppet. But this is very likely the last time I will ever entertain/indulge you in your denials. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you are obsessed because you seem to be looking for sockpuppets all the time. Of course I made the 10 edits just to get autoconfirmed, so as to be able to edit a semi-protected article. I am clever enough to understand how to sign my posts. I am not too new in Wikipedia, I used to edit as an IP up to now. I already had this account but there was no reason to activate it as I was able to edit as an IP. This was the first time I wanted to edit a semi-protected article, so I had to get autoconfirmed. Sakis Sg (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sakis sg   Confirmed I'll check into the other account at my earliest convenience. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Drowninginlimbo is related on a behavioral basis (although you are correct there are some similarities. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted Sakis Sg yet again. Sakis Sg also didn't help his case when he admitted that he had a WP:Sleeper (account in the wings); such an account, as you know, is typical WP:Sockpuppet behavior. Considering how especially obvious Picker78 was this time, I wonder if he was WP:Baiting me; he had to have known that I would jump right on him. But then again, there was no way that I was not going to take the bait and revert and/or report him for WP:Sockpuppetry, and he keeps trying to add his preferred wording to articles regardless. As for Drowninginlimbo, yes, Drowninginlimbo is obviously not a new Wikipedia editor, but, like I stated above, has an "editing style [that] is (or seems) different than Picker78's." Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As for your restoring User talk:Promiscuous man, I was definitely hoping for his confession to be restored. Any reason you chose to leave a note instead? Thanks, though, whatever your reason. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We try to minimize such attention seeking but in this case it is clear evidence so I've restored it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And by the way, this new account stood out to me because it edited the Starr Manning article soon after I did minutes ago, and that article is not a high-traffic article (in views or in editing). That editor may be trying to get WP:Autoconfirmed. I don't mean to come across as paranoid, but I'm throwing this out there...in case that editor turns out to be Picker78 as well. Picker78 always creates WP:Sleepers at some point; sometimes soon, other times not so soon. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Um.. I don't want to turn out malicious or anything, but, has Atlantictire been sanctioned at all for all this? -- Director (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Bbb extended the block out to ten days duration, if it happens again it will likely (almost certainly) be indef. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

After all the "gestapo", "antisemitic crank", "bigot", etc. + the three attack socks? I always thought if you're a multiple sockpuppeteer you're indeffed on the spot. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's generally left to the discretion of the blocking admin. I'd talk to @Bbb23: about this. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, I'm puzzled by your block of Electrostatic345345 (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of Mittybark111 (talk · contribs). I don't see any mention of this user account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mittybark111/Archive. If this is a sockpuppet case, shouldn't it be documented better? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see why you would be confused. I ran a checkuser on the case located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/207.255.205.112#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments. A clerk should merge the case to the Mittybark111 case at some point in the next day or two. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoah - Mittybark111 is one busy troublemaker. Thanks for cleaning up that mess. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Daveandbusters1345 was indeffed as one of the ceiling fan puppets. An IP left this message on my talk page, and I blocked the IP for one year for block evasion and being a confirmed proxy server. Then, when I probed further, I saw a range of IPs editing Archie Karas. My guess is Daveandbusters was using the proxy server to post to my talk page as the other edits of that IP and of the other IPs seem unrelated to the subject matter of the sock puppetry. Does anything further need to be done? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've locked the account and globally blocked the proxy. --Rschen7754 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In this edit to a sockpuppet investigation, you said "Some of these acoutns coule be meat but are technically clean." The mental image that comes to mind is Kosher spam (food), which of course does not exist. Thanks for the laugh. Oh, and I do understand what you were really trying to say. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

I am a professor in the communication department planning on a wikipedia editing assignment with my 80 studemt class this quarter. As campus ambassador, can you help me? I am reading up on the instructir and syllabus materials, but it would be great to meet and talk about advice or support to students as they undertake their projects for the quarter.

Might you be free to meet this week?

Thank you, Lilly Irani

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist   Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato.   Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I can forgive you for groaning when you see that heading. First, I'd like to thank you for your recent work on the case when you uncovered several latent accounts. Secondly, though, I wonder if you can give me some advice.

As you know Daft is a long-term abuser of the site who focuses on WP:CRIC by disrupting its articles and making personal attacks on several of its members. There is one exception, User:Johnlp, whom Daft sees as an "ally" of some kind although there is no real reciprocation of that, except in as much as Johnlp endeavours to be all things to all men and tries to see every point of view. The difficulty is that Johnlp believes Daft should be able to use User talk:Johnlp to express his views and he has resisted efforts by those of us trying to remove Daft's edits by saying that it is "his page" and he will decide what is displayed there.

I believe that under the terms of WP:BMB, Johnlp has no say in this and should stand aside when Daft's posts are removed from the talk page. Better still, I believe the page should be semi-protected to stop Daft using it. I have gone to WP:Requests for page protection but am not confident of that process as I'm proposing another user's talk page. I have also reported Daft to WP:Long-term abuse/Richard Daft.

Can you advise me on these steps? Am I going about things the right way and is there anything else you can suggest? Thanks very much. HCCC14 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Only further step is AN or ANI but I'd generally try to avoid that unless absolutely necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:NativeForeigner,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with JamesBWatson. The two users agree, but that does not make them sockpuppets. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Can I have an update on the status of this SPI? In particular I'm wondering why no blocks have yet been made if there is a paid editing ring at work here, as you alluded to in the SPI. I realise you may be busy offline, and that there might be additional checks going on behind the scenes, but the case has been open for quite awhile now without many updates. ThemFromSpace 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really ambiguous. There are a couple groups of two accounts but they are stale. There is also some geographic grouping that could suggest meat. But hte groups are across four continents (as I recall). It might be best to block on behavior. I Relisted so that another checkuser could examine it, but as you can tell that hasn't occurred. I'll be much less busy at the end of the week, but no guarantees on actually blocking anything on CU evidence: this is not clear cut technically. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! ThemFromSpace 15:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's   Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's   Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's   ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included   Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and   Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from   Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from   Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to   Czar (submissions) and   Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner, According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kerry, it was previously decided that the article on Vanessa Kerry be merged into John Kerry's; and hence this article has been nominated for deletion for a second time. As you are not involved in this article, your input and decision would be appreciated. Please also read this, when making a decision. (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 

Hello, NativeForeigner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil.
Message added 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding the sockpuppet allegations against me by Carabobo1821/Justiciero1811 is there anything I can do to help you resolve them? I've had quite enough trouble on Wikipedia lately without this nonsense.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner,

I'm Carabobo1821. You recently blocked me for "disruptive editing" and as an "admitted sockpuppet". (I apologize, I had to create another account because my previous account was blocked)

I am extremely concerned that you acted so hastily to ban me. I am not new to Wikipedia and I am more than familiar with the rules. For example, there are legitimate uses of sockpuppetry: WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Sockpuppetry is specifically acceptable when privacy or security are at risk. As I mentioned in my opening statement of the SPI I launched, this is a concern of mine.

As far as the illegitimate uses of sockpuppetry, I have not done anything to violate any of the rules. I have not engaged in: Creating an illusion of support, strawman socks, editing project space, circumventing policies or sanctions, contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, etc, etc, etc.

The people behind the sockpuppets I was hoping to expose are agents (not the "secret agent" kind, just "people acting on behalf of") of the Venezuelan government. There is little doubt in my mind. There is also ample evidence in numerous RSs to support this statement (which I can provide, should you so request).

They have already sued Justiciero1811 and have obtained his IP address, and presumably are going to try to harass him through the courts until he is buried in legal debt. If you would like evidence of this, I would be happy to provide it as well.

Admittedly, the sockpuppet investigation I put up for your review was not up to standards and worthy of your time :( and for that I apologize. I will rewrite it in a clearer manner. In retrospect, there are several users that should not have been included in the investigation, including Arctic M and Auric. I will apologize to both of them individually.

I was involved with Wikipedia several years ago while I was in college, and once I graduated and started working, I had to significantly scale back my editing. I will do my best to be responsive to your feedback.

I'm also confused why this bit of information was removed from the investigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970&diff=609933383&oldid=609926662 FergusM1970 is selling his services on eLance and was paid by Derwick Associates to clean up the page... I understand the concern over "outing", but this guy has his real name and Wikipedia username listed for sale on eLance. Surely that is relevant to the investigation.

Anyway, again, I'm sorry for sending you such a jumbled investigation. I will rewrite it and submit a new one later today.

Carabobo1822 (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of using Extension:Inputbox thanks! ;) Mattsenate (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just read the documentation: the things you don't know exist... That's almost surely better. I was hearkenig back to what was done in 2009. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We met at the conference, but I wasn't sure if I told you my username. This is me. CorporateM (Talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Context; User_talk:KristinaChi#Block I'd like to politely ask why you consider 'KristinaChi' to be a disruptive username. What's disruptive about it? As far that I can see, it's a normal, non-offensive username. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

From the AUSC list Guerillero | My Talk 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this - I had the window open posting my results when I was called away from the computer. When I came back and hit "save" you had already posted your results.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Namely, everything is blocked, no sleepers. So thanks for that :) NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently as far as attracting a CU is concerned, it's feast or famine these days :)--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's   Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C,   Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with   Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to   12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from   Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from   Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of   Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection (: Yes, the vandalism on FSoG (film) has gotten worse since its first trailer was out, and I hope this stops it. Thank you again (:

Callmemirela (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I've watchlisted it, hopefully it dies down. If not I'll protect it again. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear NativeForeigner, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

I'll reply at some point in the next couple days. I've been a combination of sick, busy, and traveling. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to stay up with arbcom business. Not terribly active with anything else, having some health issues. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1.   Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2.   Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3.   Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6.   12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7.   Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8.   Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists.   Matty.007 (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   WikiRedactor (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   Yellow Evan (submissions),   Prism (submissions) and   Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner,

I am working on a project to support the development of current and future newcomer mentorship programs on Wikipedia.

Because you recently participated in the Articles for creation, I would like to interview you about your experience in this program.

If you are interested, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu and hopefully we can find a convenient time to conduct an interview via Skype or Google hangout.

Thanks,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.   Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.   Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.   Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.   Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was probably not your intention, so you might want to redact the name you used here [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops. The problem with such erm, changes. I'm not sure how aggressively I should try to redact it per policy, but I've certainly changed it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think he has been saying he has serious personal security reasons for not wanting it used publicly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

 

 

 

The 2014 WikiCup champion is   Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles.   Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

•   Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
•   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
•   Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
•   Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
•   Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
•   Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
•   12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
•   ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
•   Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
•   Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
•   Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
•   ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I sent ArbCom an email re my I-ban as it relates to the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Please respond. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it went to spam. I'll get back to you in the next 3-4 hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And sorry for the delay. Nonetheless I posted to workshop talk. @Ignocrates: NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it. Thanks for doing that. Ignocrates (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to look at this SPI? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I just took a gander. I'll talk it over, although becuase Courcelles has already ran a check I'm not sure what utility a further check would truly have. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello NativeForeigner. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"It doesn't hurt to have it on record."[6] Yes it does.[7][8] Bishonen | talk 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm aware of the IAC circumstances. I see your point, but if I recall correctly it was certainly a point of contention for a while. I'll take another look at the timeline, but given the substantial argument that emerged as a result of it, I think the documentation is useful and not overly harsh. Although that does assume people won't take it way out of context, which is probably quite untrue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's untrue, the latest IAC sock is already on it. "Stalkers and Arbcom sanctioned abusers of women like you". Bishonen | talk 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

Noted. There *may* be a motion incoming to deal with this junk. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to repeat what I've already said, but there is no doubt that IAC have latched onto it and it is not limited to that single sock. I guess I made my bed there but, really, they are picking up anything and everything relating to me that they think they can turn into a negative. Supposedly, this is all going to appear in a report in The Times of India at some point. A journalist from that paper has contacted me for a right-to-reply but I am extremely constrained in what I can say due to issues connected with WMF/WMIN. Nightmare! - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Clearly very troublesome. I'll do what I can. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The likely most relevant diffs are 14 Nov and 15 Nov. Various people, including Bish, RegentsPark and Rich Farmbrough have expressed their opinion that the proposal serves no purpose. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and some of the details that I referred to in the latter diff have indeed been leaked from within WMF. You'd need to speak with them if you want confirmation but I can email you a relevant contact point. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 

images and military history
Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as USS Washington (BB-56) and Mo Tae-bum, for uploading excellent images and service on the Commons, for seeing the possibility of good faith, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (16 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 677th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this? (1) Topic ban from Gender Gap Task Force pages. (2) Explicit authorization of non-appealable 48 hour blocks by any administrator for future instances of incivility. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Something like has been brought up. I think davies is more workable from a consensus gaining point of view, as there is a feeling that the 48 hour blocks would repeat ad nauseum. I'm not convinced but, eh. [9] has been proposed, and hopefully will gain traction. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it ensured that other admin wont undo the blocks pre-mature? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not allowed to. Very few admins will be concerned over a short block for incivility. And the alternative to this solution seems to be a ban so in that sense it's a win-win. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC).
@Knowledgekid87: All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

At the moment I am not asking for a loosening of restitutions, but that a finding which makes demonstrably false claims about WP:BOTPOL should be struck. I have tried to suggest the most innocuous loosening (viz, to archive my own talk page) but there seems little appetite to do anything constructive. I appreciate your support if you think that a patently wrong finding should be struck. If you have any ideas about the type of use case that the committee might look favourably on, please let me know, I have regular requests for assistance that I have to turn down, and would be happy to put a suitable one to the committee, providing I am not just wasting my time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

I think on the whole past disruption has been substantial enough that I'd default to status quo. I don't think the finding is patently false, though there is a lot of grey area. NativeForeigner ^Talk 13:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that "grey area" findings are really acceptable. But I would welcome a simple explanation as to how the first three of the four points can be anything but clear cut. They are statements of policy that are simply false.

It is perhaps worth remembering that not only was I running bots but I was very active on Bot matters for the period 2006-12, being one of the most active on bot pages in that era, including discussions on policy and helping maintain the list of BAG members. I am even cited in academic literature for my work in smoothing the long-term relationship between humans and bots (R. Stuart Geiger, The Private Lives of Bots in Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader pp78-93).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, I'm fairly aware of your history. I can re-review bot policy and the findings, but especially through the holiday season time is limited. For whatever reason, I can't find your request in the archives. I can find it given time, but do you have a link handy? NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's here. Note that I hadn't really looked at it in detail myself until a few months ago. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

I left a suggestion here that affects your proposed decision. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I ran into some other diffs which may cause the decision to be a bit more delayed, more to consider, plus sitting at a desk isn't that comfortable for me right now. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Take your time and get well. The wheels of arbitration grind slowly anyway for a reason. Hope you feel better soon. Ignocrates (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in the sense of WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests; just something that probably won't take too much time.

You blocked User:Ikshir as a User:Kashur99 sock; Ikshir's only edit was continuing Kashur's edit war at Kashmiri Muslims. Could you run a check for any sleepers? As well, could you look at User:Null134? Like Ikshir, Null has no edits except for continuing Kashur's edit war at this article, which I've just protected because of the ongoing edit war. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Still Eve here; it's a few minutes until 7PM. Thanks for the help! I blocked the IPs, since I know that you're not at liberty to disclose whether they're related to the accounts, but I figured it was better to get an official statement from a CU on the account. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm not going to object. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you redirected following the reference in my prod, but I'm not sure this is really right. Just if someone was looking for "Meou", they will probably not recognise it on the Chinese units page, because it is an archaic/nonstandard spelling from a dubious source. I know that redirecting is a quick way of getting rid of articles, but should I propose deleting the redirect? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I assumed the name would have some level of prevalence, but in looking in both scholarly and non scholarly (google) sources I can't find that spelling anywhere but the original source. I've self-reverted, and I'll let the PROD take course (or turn into an AfD). The redirect could go to redirects for discussion but I think that's hardly the best course of action. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello NativeForeigner, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

 

As a member of WikiProject Bacon, I'm wishing you a very happy New Year's Eve and a great 2015! May your new year be filled with positive experiences, great wiki contributions, and of course, well-smoked thin-cut bacon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi NF, I was hoping to follow up on my ANI report a while back, specifically this one. Short story, we have a recurring vandal from the Tamaulipas region of Mexico disrupting articles. I'd forgotten that I'd previously reported them at ANI here. Anyhow, I'm seeing more activity from another incarnation 189.235.6.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for example here and here. I wasn't sure what all you had done in this matter, but wanted to report a new IP without starting a new ANI case. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll check in the morning. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Have a fantastic new year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I softblocked both ranges for a week. Let's see if that takes care of it. I'll set a reminder for myself to look into this again, but if you can get back to me in a week with it's effectiveness, that would be good. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 10:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a fairly bad case of the flu. Response may be delayed and/or not thorough until I'm more coherent. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Get better! Drink Theraflu. Keep hydrated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume it is: User:199.243.220.218. You blocked it for a year.[10] Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It could be, possibly is. Nothing to indicate it has changed ownership, although nmap wouldn't indicate it is a proxy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You voted in the collapsed sections on a lot of the topic bans. The other topic ban proposals have all been collapsed for the "standard topic ban" options.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoot. I noticed it for some, not for others. I'd written up how I generally wanted to vote prior to them being collapsed . Thanks for the note, I'll run back through and check them asap. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Were you intending to vote for NBSB's topic-ban? You voted for it in the collapsed sections but not the real one. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reviewed it, although I can't say I entirely understand to the level I'd like to. I'll review it when I have more time, and I'll ask any relevant questions at that time. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That thread sums up the COI/sock case, and there is a link to the tendentious editing case (and commentary on that by DGG) in the last thread on that page. Taken together, that is the case. 2-4 hours reading, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)