Could you block User: Yung game's new sock User: Yung 50 ovious just by name alone and was created after Yung game got blocked. STATic message me! 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC) reply

New sock by Yung game is User:Yung hood ovious by editing habits, created after Yung 50 got blocked and similar name as previous names. STATic message me! 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Another sock by Yung game; User:Yung hussle. STATic message me! 00:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Back again: User:Yung malone. STATic message me! 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

While I'm not opposing the FAC, I've made my position clear on that spammy German title here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin! Thanks for removing that info from Hitparadeitalia. Is it a fake chart? I think Punkox is back again, as Rayos19 ( talk · contribs) (I'm not sure, the editing pattern seems similar). Also, I've asked this before, currently an album article is Just Whitney.... But I don't think full stops have importance (like " You Make Me Wanna", Happy Christmas (Jessica Simpson album)). Can you move it back to Just Whitney? Thanks! Novice7 ( talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks. As for Just Whitney, I'll discuss it on its talk page. Ooh, sorry. The website did seem a bit weird to me. Anyway, thanks! Novice7 ( talk) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Update: The Hitparade Italia website uses Musica e Dischi as a source. Musica e Dischi is an Italian Music Journal (like Billboard). Is that reliable? Novice7 ( talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I saw this. It says "By Tuttamusica and Musica e dischi". I don't know what Tuttamusica is though. Novice7 ( talk) 05:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Now I see. I'll take a look at Musica e Dishi, or ask someone with a subscription. Novice7 ( talk) 05:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I saw the old revisions so I removed the genre. Allmusic "style" is secondary to the review which states "prog metal beats". Allmusic doesn't mention post-grunge in its review. Post-grunge is quite different from prog metal or space rock. And there isn't any source that describes this as a post-grunge album. There isn't any reason for add the genre to the article and I think that that source isn't used correctly.-- Сказал ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply

[1]. I may not be right. Isn't it incorrect to mark an IP as a vandalism-only account? Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

But in any case, the vandalism problem was solved. Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The source does say the song charted:

In November 2005, Spears released her first remix album, B In The Mix: The Remixes. The songs ranged from "...Baby One More Time" to "Toxic". Her newest single "Someday (I Will Understand)" was also remixed. Another single, "And Then We Kiss", was only released in Asia, where it charted in many countries. The song peaked at number 15 on Billboard's Hot Dance Airplay chart despite it not being officially released in the U.S. It also peaked at #13 on Australia's Hot 30 Countdown despite not being officially released. - http://www.uproxx.com/page/Britney+Spears

Plus, Billboard does not show any chart position for Unusual You or Shattered Glass either.

- http://www.billboard.com/#/song/britney-spears/unusual-you/12074402 - http://www.billboard.com/#/song/britney-spears/shattered-glass/12074400

Yet, they charted (see the articles) and have their own articles. - Sauloviegas ( talk) 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

A bit excessive on the protection now are we? How about trying to just block the accounts and the ip before we go to the extreme of full protection for half a year.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The Fox and the Hound seems to still be fully protected. I know that you stated that if their was consensus to remove the full protection you would, but last time I checked the ANI discussion seems to have stalled. Is there another forum that you would prefer or is within guidelines that we can get a clear discussion going on this matter?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 17:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kww. Thank you for the response! I am a new Wikipedia user and I don't know what you're talking about the providing thing. Please talk back. RobertRay45821 ( talk) 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC) RobertRay45821 3/11/2011 reply

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Where do you say where you've got it? Please send me a message back! RobertRay45821 ( talk) 02:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) RobertRay45821 3/11/2011 reply

Ok the website is http://www.myicore.com/music/akon-the-real-life-story-of-aliaune-badara-thiam/ in the first part. Thanks for your patience. RobertRay45821 ( talk) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

{{help me}} Hi Kww. I do not understand why that's not a good website to prove that that's his real name. Go to http://www.ask.com/ and search for "Aliaune Damala Dakha Bouga Time Puru Nacka Lu Lu Lu Badara Akon Thiam". I see it everywhere. If it is good enough to add something, tell me becajuse I am a little confused. Ok thanks. RobertRay45821 ( talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The websites you found were not reliable sources - because they do not have a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', or 'editorial control'.

Examples of reliable sources are: Newspapers, books, magazines, or certain websites (such as CNN or BBC News). Please read WP:SOURCES. Cheers,  Chzz   ►  03:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You're right. I started an SPI, but I have no evidence of him being Punkox. Almost all the IPs editing Irresistible and A Little Bit are from Lima. I'll surely let you know when he's back again. It's easy, he'll most probably edit Irresistible. Novice7 ( talk) 05:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll surely let you know next time I spot him. Punkox seems to know a lot about Simpson. Too bad he edit wars a lot, and adds unsourced information. Novice7 ( talk) 05:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin! Can you take a look at this. Is the chart really reliable? Novice7 ( talk) 12:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply

96.32.178.81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Looking at Wikirage I saw this IP as the #1 editor for the last day. I don't remember enough about the guy to make a call, but I know you do. Protonk ( talk) 06:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Im coming very late to this, and i know its closed, but thank you for the summary of apparently deceitful redirect reversions in your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. I had wondered last year why this editor was defending some (in my opinion) highly unnnotable articles. I didnt know that others had noticed these behaviors. Now I dont feel so bad for almost always disagreeing with one editor. I hope he can stop this behavior, but your list is a smoking gun showing a pattern unlikely to be changed. If he continues to do this kind of work, and another administrative proceeding is held which i for whatever reason dont get alerted to, feel free to inform me. Of course, if i see a change from him, i will be among the first to thank him and encourage him. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kev. Can you do something about Jesal33 ( talk · contribs) and his sock Jesal333 ( talk · contribs). The former kept on vandalizing Rajkot. The latter added the same content a few moments before. Novice7 ( talk) 16:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. There are a lot of accounts vandalizing the same page. I had to ask for a protection to stop them. Would they be the same users? Novice7 ( talk) 16:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I guessed that too. Probably from North India. I'll keep a look out for more edits. Thanks for helping me out. Novice7 ( talk) 17:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

A question Kev. If Dutch 100 chart is included on a song article, can Tipparade chart be included too? Like in "Irresistible", I found this. It shows a position of number ten. Also, I saw these edits by Punkox. Seems like he wants to set Simpson pages right. Novice7 ( talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I didn't know about that. Novice7 ( talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I've finally managed to put together a moderately readable response to your comment/request at this AFD [2]. The article is a real mess, with text cut-and-pasted from multiple other sites, including a mirror of a deleted WP article, and I don't see any way to handle the copyright/licensing problems except to repeat the original deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your "bon volonté" kww and your concerns Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Look, my version was a cut down version of what existed. So copyright issues may still be there. Most of the article is basically from internal sources of Elissa website and fansites and is copied word for word. But since I do have the experience and I am very neutral at the same time, I am volunteering to write an article from scratch just avoiding any cut and paste whatsoever from existing materials except the bare essential facts and very down to earth brand new article without depending on whatever exists now. How about that. I will need a week or so to do this though, as I am too busy werldwayd ( talk) 00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This is not factual and I would like you revetThere has been a speedy applied three times and I understand why, but no prod. I'll be restoring if you don't. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

No, he is the guy who loves to do death threats against me. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I know is he, is always he, anyway it'll be checked in some hours when he vandalize my page again. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

As I promised, here is a completely fresh article prepared by me User:Werldwayd/Articles-Test that addressed the issues raised against the former version. Hopefully this will be adopted with my sincere wish that the article remains semi-protected and that only well-established editors can edit. werldwayd ( talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for putting the new suggested page for Elissa. Much appreciated. werldwayd ( talk) 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Is this website reliable enough for use in articles. I mean, UK charts? Novice7 ( talk) 11:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh. Thanks! Novice7 ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Vanessa_Hudgens, you may be blocked from editing. User:RenamedUser5 ( talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure that removing her comments are the right way to proceed here. I think you should probably involve an admin at this point - there seems to be some very suspicious stuff going on, and I think that there is a lot of reason to believe that we're being gaslighted by "<FAKE NAME>". Let the admin weigh in, and they'll likely remove the comments. Otherwise, ignoring her and keeping an eye on her editing behavior might be prudent. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I've responded to your comments on my talk page. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Still interested? - Jarry1250  ^{Who? Discuss.} 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I hope it helps. I'll keep you posted. Snap Snap 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Greekboy ( talk) 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I see you were involved in discussion on a previous AfD. Anything you'd like to add? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please don't delete the chart positions for Goodbye Lullaby. They are genuine chart positions, I will be posting sources later today. -- StephenN17 ( talk) 16:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) -- User:StephenN17 reply

Kevin, can you un-protect Rebecca black and redirect it to Rebecca Black, if possible? Thanks. Novice7 ( talk) 13:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please contribute to the discuss whether or not this article should be deleted at its articles for deletion page. Thank you! ℥ ^{nding· start} 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to let people know because that article really got no exposure to edits, and I want people to see it and put in their input. I was in no way what-so-ever campaigning to get the article deleted. ℥ ^{nding· start} 16:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

There's an explanation here. Note that the name was being associated with strongly inappropriate behavior both on and off Wikipedia. DS ( talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin. I haven't nominated any article for deletion at the moment. So, I don't think I may have posted a message on your talk regarding the same thing. But, I will surely follow your advice :) Novice7 ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm curious about your comment that PC makes SPI more difficult. I don't doubt you as I have little experience with SPI. However, I'm not clear on what it is about PC specifically that disrupts a SPI. Thanks for your support in the PC discussion. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 05:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

So Kevin, I have an alternate account which I don't want to use. Does Wikipedia rules permit blocking of that account? The account is Mag41 ( talk · contribs). If Wikipedia does permit, can you do an indef? Thanks! Novice7 ( talk) 08:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I use it (rarely) when I am editing from any public computers and mobiles. I don't edit from both of them anymore, so I felt the account is of no use. If it cannot be blocked, it's okay. I'll not log in or edit from that account. Novice7 ( talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, I have a small question. I don't know if I am allowed to ask this, but, does indef block (in case of Nathan) mean he cannot edit his talk page too? I don't know much about blocks, so I thought I should ask you. He is such an amazing editor and has helped me out on everything. We were working on a project together :( Novice7 ( talk) 17:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I saw the SPI. I hope he gets unblocked soon. I mean, he works so hard on all Mariah Carey articles, and also helped me out on Whitney Houston articles. He was working on a joint project with me and User:Candyo32. But now, I don't know what to say. I also know what happened between Tbhotch and Nathan. Kevin, there is an issue too (not related with Nathan). An IP keeps on removing information about Susan Boyle cover from " I Know Him So Well" stating "it plummeted from its peak position and so is not notable". I have opened a discussion on Talk:I Know Him So Well. Can you comment? I don't know what to say (I've tried my best to explain). Novice7 ( talk) 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Please see my discussion with Ianmacm on this topic.

If the citation to the death certificate is necessary with regard to Sharon Murphy then it follows that the citation to the birth certificate is necessary with regard to Angelo Bertolotti since he does not appear on that copy of the death certificate (although this has subsequently been amended)

Any attempt to enforce a double standard could be read as an attempt to undermine Angelo Bertolotti's claim to be Brittany's father on behalf of Sharon Murphy.

Please explain why the birth cerificate is unreliable and the death certificate is not ( W090584 ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)) reply

can this [3] be linked in place of the existing paternity citation, and if not why not? ( W090584 ( talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)) reply

Ridiculous stuff as always, search at his talkpage and my talkpage at January 26 and here as well. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there any particular reason that this needed to be revdeleted? It doesn't look like something that needs to be hidden from public view at first glance, and the sockpuppet page doesn't give any hints, either. -- Conti| ✉ 18:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. This is a courtesy notification to user Jivesh boodhun, user Ratizi, admin Andrewa, and admin User:Kww. ( I've posted this identical message to each of these four user-talk pages. ) I'd like to let you know that I created a talk-page section entitled "Solicitation concerns" about an article or matter that you've been involved with previously, and that I think may be of interest to you. I've added this page to my own watchlist, temporarily, in order to not miss any response you might make here, but I'd prefer to keep all comments on the talk page for the "Dangerously in Love 2" article, if possible. Best regards,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin! Is it possible to merge the history from this into the history of Mandy Moore discography? I would like to nominate it for an FL. Novice7 ( talk) 17:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much Kevin. Novice7 ( talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For sorting out vandalism and for your dedication to other "admin" related areas. Novice7 ( talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping me out whenever I'm in any trouble and giving me necessary tips and advices. Novice7 ( talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I had to give you two barnstars. Novice7 ( talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, its User:L-l-CLK-l-l, im logging out so a user doesnt stalk me as id rather stop this discussion. Could you please do something about User:Simon Dodd. As you can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song) and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:L-l-CLK-l-l he is continually insulting me and other editors for our view (which everyone, including an admin agrees with me) based on us being "incompetent" and "logically flawed" based on our age, hes not even commenting on rules anymore (because he lost) hes just insulting me, he was already warned and continues, please help. Ive stopped commenting to show good faith, tho he has insulted me on both pages yet again. 96.55.231.33 ( talk) 05:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I am aware of that. I just thought that s/he'd understand what I was talking about, but obviously s/he didn't/still doesn't. I'll ask for somebody to revert the changes for me. Thanks! ℥ ^{nding· start} 10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Receive any welcome back flowers on behalf of my return :P. Thanks again Kevin, hope you're a little less morose than last week :). Keep in touch, I'd like to hear from you once in a while, not just when its something negative ;) Hope you're doing well!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, I believe that Nkgal is censoring my edits without justification. I have attempted to include facts about Charles Harrelson and the murder of Sam Degelia and each time Nkgal simply removes them citing copyright policy. The fact is that the content and reference material is not copyrighted. Can you please look at the edits I have made and verify that there is no copyright violation. I have read the wiki policy of copyright and verfiability and I do not see any violation of wiki policy. Please advise. Thank you. Sam Degelia ( talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have any thoughts re. 189.194.174.228 ( talk · contribs) (and possibly, connecting to Monkeylegend ( talk · contribs))? I may well be paranoid, in which case, please tell me so. Cheers,  Chzz   ►  03:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, I don't know if the problem is only for me, but it seems like the singlechart template has been modified by someone. Whenever the template is used, " On the Floor" article shows up! Novice7 ( talk) 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It was a computer glitch. Solved :) Novice7 ( talk) 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

IP impersonated you here. I checked their contributions, because at first I thought that you forgot to sign in. -- Confession0791 ^talk 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

'Auto update' [4] seems like a good idea, but, the ref [5] seems to say that the position is 54, not 34?  Chzz   ►  16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah - I imagine because [6] says 'peak position 32' - however, that seems to be for the album; on the same ref page, it says the singles' peak pos is 54?  Chzz   ►  16:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) I'm confused. Did Pink Friday chart at number 32 or 34? And isn't "Girls Fall Like Dominoes" still at 54 (the new chart has yet to be released)? Yves ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm completely lost. Doing my taxes, will look at this in a few hours.— Kww( talk) 17:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. Though it could be sorted out by then; the new chart will be released in nine minutes. Yves ( talk) 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think - I'm pretty sure - that the figure used by Kww was incorrect, as it referred to an album, not the single. But I don't want to cause problems by editing the page too often; hence asking. It's no big worry. Thanks.  Chzz   ►  17:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The new chart was just released ( here) and "Girls Fall Like Dominoes" is now at number 32 this week. I believe Pink Friday is supposed to be at number 32 (peaked in March: source), but The OCC's archives haven't been updated yet. Yves ( talk) 18:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Nope. Its a lie. I know nothing what so ever about that account. That account is nothing what so ever to do with me.

I am even happy for a check user to do a check user on my account to prove that I am nothing to do with User Wecantdoanythingaboutit. User:Ruth-2013 is my first and only account on wikipedia. ( Ruth-2013 ( talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)) reply

I saw you changing a block's duration to 99 years. Isn't that as good as indefinite? Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. I did it because I needed to change the description in the block log, as checkuser said it probably wasn't Wiki-11233 (the reason I blocked him in the first place), but the block needs to remain in place.— Kww( talk) 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm reminded of the judge's retort from "But Judge, I can't do 31,200 years!" "Well, just do as much of it as you can."-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Chime in. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Was is necessary to revert the edits like this? I checked this, and it appears to be correct. Do you do this to discourage the user from making yet another sock puppet, because they will just be banned and reverted again? _Blake ^{( Talk· Edits)} 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hungary Dance Top 40 unnecessary. Because more important Hungary Radios Top 40. alptns90 ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand your concern. I tried to refrain from doing so, but that was the second time it was relisted, and I wanted to get the result (whatever it may be) over with. I will stop doing that, however. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply

i am not disrupting any pahe..im just gicing my oponion which i think is right..............you should put her awards back on the list....

Hi I noticed you removed a few articles from pending protection that had been on long term trial, would you please avoid this without good reason as it will interfere with the possibility to easily see the long term trial articles that if they are to be removed will be removed in a single sweep, so to speak and then analysis can be done of the past and the difference in edit history from the overall removal date - it was especially Robbie Williams without reason removal that alerted me to this, Williams was one of the original trial articles, also as you are seemingly a strong opponent the trial even being in existence at this time perhaps its better if you leave the long term articles where they are till this is resolved, which will be quite soon anyways - I was wanting if there are many removals as a result of the RFC and as such the end of the long term trial to use this body of articles to see any differences between b4 and after, trial results from start to finish will imo be especially usefull from such high profile BLP articles, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't seek them out. I convert the protection to standard protection when the notice pops up on my watchlist. The trial has been over for seven months. Certainly there has been enough data gleaned from the trial to evaluate it by now.— Kww( talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No I wasn't suggesting you did and your log edit history doesn't reflect that either - it was just a request that as the issue is so close to being resolved please don't remove long term trial articles, please allow the trial to end and then there will be imo a simple single date to assess the data from start to end - You removed Robbie Williams from that group without imo any good reason at all. I would prefer it if you replaced him as an original trial article complete data start to finish, without such removals it will be hard enough to assess the data - although you feel the trial is over - it is clearly still ongoing on almost 1000 articles, no worries, please don't remove anymore start trial articles - you have waited seven months I am sure you can wait another couple of weeks and allow the trial group to be removed in one sweep so as to easily locate them for data assessment. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think any interpretation of the trial supports the claim that articles shouldn't be returned to standard protection (or unprotected) as needed by normal editing. Protonk ( talk) 21:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It appears that User:Asd140 is editing Mike Patton-related articles again, this time by IP. I'm wondering if you think further blocks would be in order, or semi-protection for those articles? Wyatt Riot ( talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll keep an eye on it, and probably protect if it keeps up. I find it telling that none of the four accounts I blocked last night have bothered to request an unblock, but two of them have tried to sneak past the block.— Kww( talk) 22:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm amused by Wikipedia:Short horizontal line, and halfway hope that it will be adopted. However, this line: the only one an editor can directly type is the hyphen seems to describe only one subset of users (namely, those who use brain-damaged operating systems like Microsoft Windows). All three SHLs are easily available from the keyboard of any Mac. An en-dash is "option-hyphen", and an em-dash is "shift-option-hyphen"—slightly different from, but no more work than, typing a capital letter or most standard punctuation marks.

You might want to think about a more accurate way of phrasing this sentence. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I've had a very similar discussion to the current one at WP:AN/EW before with Fleet Command, and personally, I think the best solution is for him to refrain from throwing BRD at people and to be able to admit he is wrong. I need to just know to throw it away even if it results in me not getting what I want. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, Kww. As someone who edits/looks after articles of musical artists, would you mind weighing in on the Talk:Chris Brown (American singer)#section 1.4 needs to be reWritten : 2008–09: Graffiti album and domestic violence case discussion? It's about whether or not Brown's domestic violence case should be divided into its own section. We desperately need other editors weighing in on the matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi there, yes that is fine on second glance I see where you are coming from. No problem. Yids2010 ( talk) 21:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I notice that you have been redacting and reverting some revisions on that article. I understand what you're doing, as you're removing additions by an indef-blocked user in violation of their block; but I had a look at this article's history, and noticed that your actions (Particularly on April 5) reverted a bot's edit. Is it possible for you to re-insert the bot's edit? Minima © ( talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"Made of Matches" was released twice on iTunes, Once by the television company Debby gave them the rights to upload the tv version of the song, the second time she released it herself on iTunes. "Deck the Halls" is from the soundtrack for The search for Santa Paws. XDebby ( talk) 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Any chance of a checkuser on this account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikeyasadie - he is creating issues everywhere. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Only if you can tell me another account that you think he might be.— Kww( talk) 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

When I saw the heading, Kww, it was my thought that next time they have checkuser elections, you might want to think of running. I'm not sure it happens again this year, so that is time if you need to massage your resume.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I nominated myself this time, and was told that I didn't have Arbcom's trust.— Kww( talk) 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No, thats hard understand. I nominated myself and was only politely thanked and ..you have not been accepted on this occasion. I was only vocalizing a bit of my displeasure regarding the new users comments and contributions, please excuse me, checkuser is not for fishing and why go fishing when a whack on the head with the hammer is usually sufficient , (comments all in regards to general lighthearted amusement) regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to hear that, Kww. You deserve better from them.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• update - MuZemike got him, eight accounts..ha... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikeyasadie - Off2riorob ( talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Songs does not need to hit charts, or receive awards to have their own article on wikipedia, this guideline is often addressed to independent and indie artists. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Howdy, can you renew the block on 91.8.xxx range? Past investigations here and here. I've reverted several edits today from a few IPs in this range and its extremely irritating. Thanks in advance and how are you? - eo ( talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

3 month extension.— Kww( talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, i have checked it out on the magazine, which i have the signature, but if you want to, i can also post a reference from the official YouTube Channel of the Billboard Brasil, which shows the 50 most played songs on the Brazil and it shows the peak of Ivete's songs. Alright, thanks!! Loveableone(talk) 16:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, I had already apologized on the subject. If I made another account was because I lost the password and other things (e-mail). Nonetheless I think I did anything else wrong, and i don't understand why the things that i put with references were reverted (again and again, and without give me any reason), only giving as a reason "sockpuppet", being that these were properly referenced. I understand that is very bad to have another account, but I explained why it happened. This won't happen again. Greetings. -- 201.241.10.117 ( talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kww. I was discussing a CSD with Wehwalt, and he referred me to you. The article in question is Flip Grater. Someone applied an A7 speedy tag, which I believe to be unfounded, since the references seem to suggest that the subject is notable. I have removed the tag, but I thought it a good idea to ask you and make sure. Thanks in advance!- RHM22 ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Those were my thoughts exactly. The article may well be deletable, but I think it needs a good consensus first. Still, I won't AfD it, because I think there are probably more pressing concerns.- RHM22 ( talk) 19:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. I reverted your recent edit at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike because I did not understand what you meant by bad grammar and removing sources. I did not remove any sources that don't appear elsewhere in the article with the proper formatting or that do not constitute reliable sources. Feel free to fix the grammar, or if you must revert again, please explain which part you think is bad grammar. Also, you said to take my own advice and make the changes individually, but the problem is that I already have done this multiple times and V7-sport has reverted them all in a single hit, but as long as he is blocked form the article I am willing to go through and make the changes again individually. Thanks. Gregcaletta ( talk) 05:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If I left out "a" that's not an excuse to revert. It's a reason to fix the grammar. It's necessary to point out that it was a separate attack rather than the same attack, and to remove this fact because one can't be bothered to fixed the grammar manually and typical of V7-sport's behaviour. However, I have always made my edits individual except when reverting V7-sports on reversions of my changes, so as long as he remain blocked I will not need to revert more than one edit at once. Thanks. Gregcaletta ( talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I looked wrong but corrected. alptns90 ( talk) 09:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm loathe to come running to an admin, but Gregcaletta is just making the same edits that I had undone before and made objection to on the talk page without any attempt to address the previous objections on the talk page. Now what? V7-sport ( talk) 00:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I have addressed the objections on my talk page because that is where you chose to make the objections. Gregcaletta ( talk) 00:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

We are coming up on 40 hours since Gregcaletta had anything to say on the talk page. At what point can I remove the tags without being considered a SOB? V7-sport ( talk) 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Well I can honestly say that the article isn't misleading and that, in my opinion it reflects a neutral POV, but I can't say that the depute is over because communication has trailed off. I'll leave the tags up but I was looking to cover my ass and to show that this has been something of a pattern. V7-sport ( talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

We now have our user re-opening the article because the song has charted "a little" but sourcing from crap places. I've removed a load of junk. I don't suppose you could redirect the article then fully protect it? I'll begin work on one in my sandpage and see of can't make something more notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fairplay. On second thoughts it wasn't exactly the most intelligent of my requests of you. I shall try and make the article notable but it might be hard as there isn't a concrete date as of yet. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

A certain editor was blocked indefinitely just about a month ago by you for having a "compromised account". His attempted legendary "alternate accounts" were not, but they have remained thankfully unused (the ones that were registered). This editor has been back as an IP since April 12 in full force; and while he may have many wiki-friends around here, I have never been one of them and his editing retains the same bad-faith nature that it always did. Why was the account blocked in the first place? If there was supposed to be a clean start, he is openly flaunting his identity yet again. I think you probably know who I'm talking about, but I can spell it out for you if I need to. My understanding was that indefinitely blocked users cannot edit because they are indefinitely blocked. What's the deal? Is this some sort of open secret? Cheers... Doc talk 08:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I responded on my talkpage, and as usual he's calling me a "troll". He's blocked indefinitely and openly socking yet again. This is disgusting how low he's sunk (again, unless others are aware that this is him and are turning a "blind eye" because he's so "funny")... Doc talk 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Forget I even asked, as I already knew the answer. Bummer to be called a troll by someone like him, but if you grease the right palms, they'll be singing your praises and ignore all the lies and disgustingly bad faith. Thanks for your time anyway :> Doc talk 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Asking questions you already know the answer to would be... (wait for it;) *trolling*. 125.162.150.88 ( talk) 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Don't you have a table somewhere to correct? They've been going all to hell since you've been gone from this "bonked" place... Doc talk 10:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

diff. 125.162.150.88 ( talk) 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Please give your opinion at WP:ANI#This is ridiculous - propose 1RR rules for V7sport and Iqinn - I would appreciate it. FWIW, I'm really getting tired of the filibustering, as I've called it on that page. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 09:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm increasingly troubled by this user... not only because nearly every edit of his has been reverted, but also because his overall pattern of editing seems very familiar to me. Do you think he may be related to any of our old friends? - eo ( talk) 17:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, a fellow wikipedian has listed Backstreet Boys discography for featured list, see it here. The person who reviewed it, claims that 3-letter county abbreviations must correlate with ISO codes, his and my comments can be found in the middle of the review. What confuses me is that when I look at all of the Featured discographies, I can't find a single one that uses DEU for Germany or CHE for Switzerland, and the sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style also does not use ISO codes, just GER for Germany, SWI for Switzerland. But again the reviewing person states that those abbreviations may have all been surreptitiously changed, from DEU to GER, CHE to SWI. Has there been a resolution on this matter, I mean I don't see any editor trying to apply those ISO codes to discographies.-- Harout72 ( talk) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes it works now. Thanks, and again my apologies.-- Harout72 ( talk) 23:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, I'm getting really annoyed by Nathan's continuous name calling me over to other people, most recent being this one, calling me "Troll DJ from India". He has previously called me other heinous things like " asshole, moody, creep" etc, completely violating WP:NPA, but this is getting ridiculous. just because I commented in one of the GAR that the original reviewer should have pointed out obvious prose concerns. And not only me, but he goes around attacking other reviewers just because they failed one of his nomination? Thats really a bad faith and douchebaggery. I believe you have dealt with this kinda behaviour from him before also, so you will be best to help me on this matter. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, first of all I would appreciate you not attaching a threat to your notice. You can talk to me normally, I don't need to be threatened in any form. Secondly, I was not aware that I am not allowed to represent my feelings to another editor. I did not write this to him, it was in the form of a discussion on my page with another editor. This is not an attack in any way. Secondly, if so, I would appreciate if the same courtesy would be given to me. For the last weeks, Legolas has been constantly speaking about me negatively to others and assuming bad faith. This should also be stopped. I have many examples I'm afraid, which indeed hurt. Here he is assuming bad faith and assuming negatively on the review. and here is is insulting me and lying about me to Tbhotch Here and Here. I would appreciate it if he would stop bringing my name negatively constantly. As you see, he is not always the innocent one. Please respond Kevin, I know your busy but I'd like to know you've read this-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why you all keep saying my review. I did not review the article. I nominated it and some bimbo passed it without anything. Is that my fault? I wasn't even aware. Before you even question it, no he's not a sock of me, go ahead and check if you think so. So what you see is people constantly talking crap about me and its quite irritating. If thats alright, then I will do the same, just keeping the direct insults out of it. Or you can just tell everyone to kind their own flipping business and stop talking and stabbing people in the back. Thanks-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Since he was unblocked he has been only attacking and harassing others:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=423643842
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=423642419
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=prev&oldid=423640780
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Adabow&diff=prev&oldid=423585923
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=423463931
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ACandyo32&action=historysubmit&diff=422959175&oldid=422782754
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJezhotwells&action=historysubmit&diff=424646810&oldid=424642728
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Novice7&curid=30166983&diff=425630008&oldid=425535318

(as well as re-assessing to his POV all Carey-related articles to high-priority in all Wikiprojects, when most of them hardly are mid-class). I don't know what's his problem, but comments like "I was not aware that I am not allowed to represent my feelings to another editor" when he perfectly knows that there is a policy. He wants people AGF on him after all those comments, and after this, please Nathan you are asking too much. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Axel, most of those are not attacks. Me telling Jivesh that I would love to quit here is not an attack. half of those aren't even talking about one person individually. And if I have a small and respected dispute with another editor, that did not involve any name calling, there is 'nothing wrong with that, and again, none of your business. Most of the reason I'm always so upset is because you all need to learn to mind your own freaking business. If Candy and I had a normal dispute, why is it your concern to go make a breakfast chat with Legolas over it? Don't you think that would be annoying. I would gladly never mention either of your names, but I ask for respect as well. Sure you aren't violating policy by speaking poorly about someone, but its a common courtesy. Be honest with yourself, you constantly instigate and try and gather little phrases and use it against me. I say this without trying to attack you, but grow up and leave me alone. Get on with your editing, and I will as well and just learn to criticize and talk smack about yourself and not others. If there is a policy issue, feel free to discuss it with me. Just because we are not friends does not mean you cannot write to me about an issue. And I hate to break it to you, but any of Carey's US or UK #1 singles should be high priority, I don't see your problem with everything. I obviously am not going to put "Angels Cry" as high, but again, instead of approaching me, you choose to instigate.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

So according to you calling people " bastard", commenting that Legolaas is a " bi-polar [sic], moody, asshole (x2), two-faced troll from India, that I am a selfish user, that Jezhotwells is a lazy editor. I don't know you but regardless if they are not attacks, it is a serious violation of civility, and you can't deny it. Also, attempting to harass and give an ultimatum to Candyo just because he's not doing his part, and that you'll kick him out from a Wikiproject, which apparently you are trying to WP:OWN, is a serious problem Nathan. Also do not tell me to "grow up and leave me alone" in the same line, is simple illogical, first of all because this is not your talkpage and I can write here whenever I want, simple because you asked me to stop leaving utter crap on your talkpage. Nathan, unless you want to become the new Brexx attempting to edit Carey articles using sockpuppets, I suggest you to obey Kevin's suggestion. Any admin at any time will block your account if you continue façading your attacks as a "represent[ation of your] feelings to another editor", and believe me no one will unblock you this time. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Again, I I see BS here. I never gave Candy an objection to kick him out of a WikiProject, what are you saying. We had a personal project, and I told him I'd do it myself, that has nothing to do with a WikiProject. Also, I am not a sockpuppet, I have actually invested a lot of time and work into Mariah Carey articles, so don't compare me to a vandal. I work hard to keep them nice. And yeah, last time I checked, you remove anything I leave on your talk page as well. All I ask is that you keep the negative opinions and bad-faith talks to yourself. Thats all, if you have a specific issue with a importance or anything, you can feel free to leave a message, as long as its respectful and not worded like your administrator. And I hate to break it to you, what I "did" is done everyday by many, so don't make it like I'm on a tight leash for it. As I've said, my work stands on its own. And no, whether I'm expressing myself or not, in the future I will not insult any of you, all I ask is the simple courtesy I mentioned.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Nathan, please. When you are personally attacking somebody, just don't expect them to be courteous or graceful in reporting you. And your work has absolutely no relation to your personal attacks, which is becoming a headache. Either stop that or please leave. We don't need such foul-mouthed users, however many GAs they have done. And I'm saying in a nice way. And Tbhotch has every right to remove content from his talk page, just as same you remove the copyright warnings from yours. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Lol, please Legolas, just analyze on just our relationship what happened prior to my "name calling". I think you gave plenty reason for it. Enough about that, minds were made up already. As I said, I won't insult or any such thing, but I expect some courtesy in the future. That is all. Find some other form of entertainment in the future.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin. I have a favor to ask of you. Well, it's a big one. I'm currently working (have finished my work) on an article. It's in my sandbox and I'd like to merge the history with the article. Well, these revisions. I know it's a tedious job. If you don't mind, can you do it for me? Please? Thanks in advance. Novice7 ( talk) 14:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. Again I apologies. I'll be more careful. alptns90 ( talk) 21:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply

After your warning, Nevandc98 continued edit-warring at Sonny with a Chance and has now breached 3RR by making five reverts in less than 14 hours. Accordingly, I have reported him at WP:AN3. As one of the people who reverted him, I have mentioned you in the report and you may wish to comment. The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. Yes, I'm glad alptns90 is finally getting the hang of all this. The other user involved (Harout72) seems to have changed all the chart positions in the template and the sources to them. I have reverted it because of that reason. Harout72 was making pretty bold edits, and it should have been discussed on the talk page. It looks pretty odd to me, for example, "I'm Into You" has charted in several places, and that user removed them saying it's "not backed by sources", by sources he changed. I think I'm gonna leave him a little message on his talk page about this. ℥ ^{nding· start} 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I looked at the other singers in the Canadian chart history. Does not support them up. For example: Lady Gaga and Britney Spears. Last songs "Born This Way" and "Hold It Against Me" is not included. "On the Floor" I had used it for: [7]. Is it wrong to use? it is not included here: [8]

Lady Gaga Canadian chart history: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/artist/lady-gaga/chart-history/1003999?f=793&g=Singles

Britney Spears Canadian chart history: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/artist/britney-spears/chart-history/290150?f=793&g=Singles — Alptns90 ( talk) 07:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Lopez Singles the new version looks really bad. In the old version looked better. "If You Had My Love" is Austria number 13. In addition, only two entered the top 10 and number 1 has only one in Austria . Netherlands was the only one No. 1. Also, only one No. 1 in Sweden. I really was better than the old version. Can you edit the old? and Can you help? Alptns90 ( talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The page for NBC executive Robert Greenblatt was deleted apparently because it was created by a banned user. Since Greenblatt is now president of NBC Entertainment (and has had a few other notable assignments), it would make sense to resurrect the page, or I would like to create a new one, whichever works best. Ducold ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I would be interested to know your opinion as an administrator as to whether topic bans for either or both of these editors would be useful here. I am frustrated: it is practically a guarantee that any page that both of these editors touch will turn into a massive dispute with an incomprehensible edit history - a violation of the spirit of the edit warring policy whether or not technical violations of WP:3RR occur. Blocks don't seem to work and both editors are capable of writing well, so I am hopeful a solution can be found that keeps them part of the community. What are your thoughts? Kind regards! VQuakr ( talk) 02:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I might as well post this here. I have similar interests as Iqinn (Terrorism) and have observed that he has little regard for what is written in the sources when it comes to writing what he wants to say on the encyclopedia. On Narang night raid he wrote "On February 24 U.S. forces issued an apology admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd" and sourced it to this. It is a complete misrepresentation of the source. He stands by that, stating: "i always and still believe that this is true and verified". [9] This false admission of US guilt, made up out of thin air has been up on the encyclopedia since he created the article on 17 August, 2010.

My sincere apologies for my part in any disputes, but what can be done about an editor who willfully misrepresents what the sources say to that degree? V7-sport ( talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Of several possibilities, one idea would be to pursue mediation to resolve the dispute without edit warring. A link to the appropriate location to start a case was posted on your user talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 05:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm finished with edit warring, I'm more curious as to what is done with an editor who has a history of mischaracterizing what his sources say in order to post whatever he wants on the encyclopedia. V7-sport ( talk) 18:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a lot wrong. For example: "If You Had My Love" was No. 1 in The Netherlands. But it seems to No. 2. Check if you see others. As such there is a lot wrong. The old version was more reliable and better. Alptns90 ( talk) 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you please maybe suggest to V7 he promised to stop his edit warring on articles? I see you recently had warned him about this, and I don't want to have to report him which could result in a block. User: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AV7-sport

He is edit-warring now here, with 3 reverts already in 24 hours, without using the talk page for discussion and gaining consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_and_state_terrorism&action=history

Thanks. BernieW650 ( talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I was just coming over here to ask how this should be handled. BernieW65reverted me twice in under 5 minutes before I could write anything on the talk page. His edit summary was "I see you have recently been blocked for edit warring. This is your 3rd revert. If you revert again, I will report you." This is a "brand new" account and he is already resorting to edit warring. V7-sport ( talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't want to report you, and I've never had to report anyone before. I'm asking you to slow down and use the talk page first to gain consensus for big changes that are opposed, instead of reverting with edit summaries. Can you just please slow down and discuss first, and get some agreement with others? This is supposed to be a collaborative effort. And, I'm a long time IP editor. This is the first time I registered for an account. BernieW650 ( talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Re KWW, :This user is reverting changes someone else originally had made. En masse. According to WP:BRD he needs to talk it out before reinstating, instead he has resorted to 3rr. Regardless, I hadn't even opened up the talk page before he reverted and now he is accusing ME of edit warring. V7-sport ( talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

RE. BernieW650. That was exactly your 12th edit on this user name and you are edit warring complaining here. Asking me to "slow down" is pretty Ironic considering you had reverted me before I was able to open up the talk page for discussion. Those edits were originally made by Jehochman with consensus after another AFD. Despite you reverting them I went through them on good faith and picked out what was arguably not synthesis and restored it, only to have you blindly, without discussion revert the entire thing, run it up to 3rr and resort to threats. V7-sport ( talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC) reply

BernieW650 has been reverting content without even reading it. (Reverting in cite tag errors, spelling mistakes and redundancies in the text and was surprised by this even though he has done so multiple times.) Making an effort not to edit war here doesn't get you far when you are the only one trying to do so. V7-sport ( talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin can you please ask Z33K not to Edit war on " Born This Way (song)" and not do MOS violations with the credits? I donot have any intention to do any 3RR, but this is just silly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, he his going on reverting and has already violated 3RR. Please do something. I do not want this article to become unsteady because of this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry I did not notice you had done something. Apologize. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Btw, can you revert the correct version of the credits section of the article or can I do it? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Interesting subject. Plaza Resort Bonaire is certainly notable. The other I created, not so sure. You tell me. If you can expand it, please do, if not and you think its non notable, please delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, I don't think edits of User:ThisKidKnowsMuzik!:) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are in any way good, or even accountable. Continuous vandalism of articles. Would you take administrative actions based on your judgement? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Reported at WP:AIV. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Today's edits didn't warrant a block. I gave him a final warning two days ago, and what I sensed in today's edits was a frustrated newbie, not a vandal.— Kww( talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, Kww, I have an article I'm building, currently at GAN, which is just up your alley as one more familiar with Dutch language and culture than the average bear. It's Koninginnedag. I'd be grateful for your comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It is passed GA and is now pending peer review. Since I use several Dutch sources, I'd appreciate feedback. I understand, though, if life has you too busy or if Dutch stuff is something you don't want to deal with anymore.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Kevin, so while re-doing this article I stumbled upon an issue with the Dutch charts, maybe you could chime in and help. I found this source from Hung Medien claiming it reached #11, and then I found this source which also is official, and lists it as #1. So I'm really not sure which is the main one or which take precedence. Care to explain. Thanks :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. So I go with #11 or #1?-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok perfect. Thanks :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Is it just me or is the singlechart macro not working for the Dutch Top 40. See here. Also for the link I'm given can we clarify whether the song has reached number 4, 6 or 8 on the Dutch Top 40 as there appears to be lots of confusion. Thanks, — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You are involved in removing that protection and you should not have done it - please revert you involved admin action. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please stop using your tools removing a protection applied in good faith because you are involved . Off2riorob ( talk) 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please explain your administrative actions using your tools - your tools were not given to you to use when you were involved and as a personal knee jerk response, please comment. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You have lost my respect for any authority you think you have . Your tools are not for you to gain in conflicts when you are angry. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you are overreacting. How am I any more involved from removing an invalid application of PC than PC supporters were when they applied it? Are you going to argue that no one that argued for pending changes can ever apply it to an article? If that's the case, then both Jimbo and Ged UK cannot apply it to any articles.— Kww( talk) 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You used your tools in an emotional angry involved manner to support you position - three articles - the trials been over for months and its sitting harmlessly on a thousand articles - and you are angry about it and all you have got is removing it from three articles with your fantasy super powers. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not any more emotional than normal. The trial is over. There is no consensus for continued use of PC. I removed a few invalid applications of it. I will probably remove any more that get installed during the interval that the RFC is being examined. When the RFC is closed, I will assist in removing it from the remaining articles where it is installed. There's no reason to allow the problem to grow while Newyorkbrad is taking a while to acknowledge the obvious.— Kww( talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The only obvious thing is your angry involved use of the tools. Did you enjoy it? - was it exciting? did you feel powerful? Off2riorob ( talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please explain your reason to apply indefinite semi protection to the article Steve Biko - there is also no history of protection on the article - see here previous protection logs - Off2riorob ( talk) 01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Matched the term of the PC that was applied.— Kww( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You have no authority here, this is not your website your anger is something you should look at in the mirror and deal with in rea l life. Nothing need you to do here with your anger. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Remove it from semi protection indefinitely please you have no explanation as requirement to protect it like that. Off2riorob ( talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Short horizontal line, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Short horizontal line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Short horizontal line during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gerardw ( talk) 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

An IP ( 77.54.100.183) previously blocked after apparent use by GMC/ LoveActresses/ Phoebus de Lusignan is still being used to edit pages on minor nobility and actresses, the first such post-block usage coming just 2 days after Konakonian's demise, quickly followed by edits on Sir John Campbell, of Airds, a previous GMC and LoveA favorite. It does have some other edits on the Libyan insurrection, but has a distinct ducky quality to it, particularly given the past incident and it's geography (pt). Agricolae ( talk) 06:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Just noticed, also edited John Say, another LoveA target, and Pilar López de Ayala a GMC target, and in a gift that keeps on giving, there the IP seems to be tag-teaming with 193.136.149.253, similar to another blocked GMC IP and elsewhere restoring Konakonian edits (and adding pedigrees to modern actresses, Lopez de Ayala and Helena Bonham Carter which quacks loudly). Agricolae ( talk) 07:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know if the trial is over, or admins are bolding re-protecting pages, and I don't care, but could you please not protect pages that have not had vandalism in a while or practically never? For example, Juliano Mer-Khamis article, you probably argue BLP violations, but those happens almost never. Also, there's no justification for an indefinite semi-protection and the "standard protection mechanism" is apply to the previous proection], not upgrading it. Thank you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, most of time admins added indef PC, because of the trial was going on circles. And for the most recent protections, the most likely to be protected is Noam Chomsky's biography, because of the long-term abuse, the others seems excessive. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the revert on my talk. I restored the post, though, as I wanted to (sort of) clear up who Panichappy1 was and was not. As I said in my reply on my talk, the less said about the vandal, the better really, but if you're curious, you're welcome to email me. Cheers! TN X Man 22:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, I would like your opinion and possibly help. I believe the Gaga song " Yoü and I" definitely is ridiculous as a song article. It hasn't charted anywhere, has no critical reception or background info. Only one small section about live performances. I think i will nominate it for deletion, what do you think?-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin can you full-protect this page, before IPs and uber fans start another notability failing article? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, you have bumped up against me recently and I was looking - its almost three years since your RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww - As a couple of users have recently allowed the community to reconfirm their support, please present yourself for reconfirmation , thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

One, I've only been an admin a year, and two: no. Reconfirmation in an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. If you think I'm a bad admin, take it to arbcom.— Kww( talk) 00:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Your status will be strengthened by community reconfirmation, please reconsider. I look forward to the time when you are unable to refuse. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

"Welcome to my parlor, said the spider to the fly..."

Strangely enough, I look forward to that day too. I think we desperately need a uniform admin recall mechanism. Still, you'll have to forgive me if I don't think an editor that was hurling unwarranted accusations at me and demanding my recall last week is actually interested in strengthening my status within the community. RFA is a grueling experience, and not one I will repeat voluntarily.— Kww( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And God help you if it's in the discretionary zone.... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 00:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Been through that ... have you forgotten the epilogue to my third RFA? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion.— Kww( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As far as your allegations of "hurling" - my post above that you have lost my trust is clear and available. Your refusal weakens any assumed falsehoods of authority that you imagined you had and as such your adminship has no value anyway. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for dropping any pretense of having my best interests at heart. Naked hostility is always a more honest approach, anyway.— Kww( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• In the nicest way I can find to say it, it is good to see you haven't become an utter dumbass in the time I've been away. Because agreeing to admin reconfirmation following such a request would surely be a sign that you'd lost your mind. Until a defined process with legitimate rules and standards is created, reconfirmation is nothing more than a crap shoot. -- auburnpilot  talk 00:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, I haven't resigned my adminship, so I can't be that smart. Good to see you back. Going to stick around?— Kww( talk) 00:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Your adminship is worthless in your fear of losing it and your usage of it to help your POV. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Why don't you go have a cup of tea someplace else? Protonk ( talk) 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

poke ;> Barong 13:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kev, I've read the tutorial for creating templates but don't really understand it. Could you offer some advice or tips? I'm thinking of creating something along the same lines as {{ allmusic}} but don't really know how to go about it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No experience whatsoever. Am i being too ambitious? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well in the same way that you can use the website ID with Allmusic to create a reference/link I was wondering if the same could be done with the ASCAP and BMI websites? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Kev, did you have any progress with this? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry to be a jaguar but, if it helps, I wrote {{ Reverbnation}} and its {{ /doc}}. Basically I copied {{ Allmusic}}, crossed out the complicated bits I didn't understand, changed Allmusic to Reverbnation throughout, and it seemed to work. The only bit that vaguely resembles programming is making up the URL at the start of the template. In my case this was www.reverbnation.com/{{{1|{{{id|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}. The incantation in braces means "Substitute parameter 1 (the myband in {{Reverbnation|myband|My Band}}); if 1 is blank then substitute the parameter named id; if 1 and id are blank then substitute the page name". More complex URLs might require more work. Certes ( talk) 07:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Kev, you never got back to me about this. Just wondered if you'd forgot or if what I was trying to achieve was too difficult/time-consuming? (hope you're well btw). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Forgot. I'll try to get to it.— Kww( talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you think our friend TrEeMaNsHoE has returned? - eo ( talk) 12:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I keep finding secret archives in enwiki. :-) Now it's your turn: User talk:Kww/07182010 is not listed above and not linked from anywhere. I collect interesting archive names for an upcoming bot, and I found your page and the bot discovered this hidden subpage. Bináris ( talk) 19:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey. I'm not sure if you do move requests, but I was wondering if you could move What Goes Around.../...Comes Around to What Goes Around... Comes Around. The song was officially released as a single as such, and there was a move request about it last month, but nothing came of it (nobody but me, just now, commented on the matter). ℥ ^{nding· start} 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC) reply

... since I'm your IP sock, what do you think we need to have this guy banned from editing? It's getting annoying. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Any admin at any moment will unprotect it because a single IP is not enough for a protection. The main problem here is that he has not a top 20, he has his top 200. The most common targets are, though, some Madonna and Rihanna singles, especially:

• Ray of Light
• Ray of Light (song) (already protected)
• Umbrella (song)
• Sexy Bitch
• SOS (Rihanna song)
• Dance in the Dark (already protected)
• Dance-pop
• Synthpop
• Poison (Nicole Scherzinger song)
• Cooler Than Me
• Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song)

Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, the user WiseNinja1 doesn't seem to have understood why we go with origin of careers, after everything you and I explained to this user, he/she edited the way he/she thinks it correct. I don't want to revert because I'm quite sure he/she will do the same. Could you please take a look at it if you have the time. Thanks in advance.-- Harout72 ( talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, the similar issue to the "On the Floor" discussion is taking place here only this time with three. Care to weigh in on the discussion here?-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Massive violations of song articles. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have replaced the pending changes flag on these articles. There are specific BLP reasons for using it, and I didn't set it as part of a trial. This was marked clearly in the setting summary, but I understand that's sometimes easy to miss. I've left notes on the talk pages of the article explaining why the flag should not be removed (sorry, I should have done that before). I am happy to discuss what's the best approach for those articles either on their talk pages, or on mine. Thanks.-- Scott Mac 09:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove FP from any BLPs without discussing the matter with the admin who placed the protection and inquiring into the circumstances. You many well be putting living people in danger of libels, or (as in one case) removing protection from the article of someone who has been libelled and complained. BLP articles need treated with the highest sensitivity - and certainly no form of protection ough to be removed without careful consideration of the specifics of the article. I will be examining the protections you have removed and restoring any on BLPs where there isn't a sign of such discussion. I would urge you to do that same. If you remove protection from any further BLPs without proper discussion and view of the specific impact to the article, I will block you as a precautionary measure.-- Scott Mac 16:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Scott's started an ANI thread, btw [10] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I have asked you to stop and so have several others. We can discuss this on ANI, but you need to desist from removing flags from BLPs in the interim. It is dangerous and the consensus is at least questionable. I will unblock you when you indicate you will not restart.-- Scott Mac 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Scott, please undo this block asap. The PC trial is over, and the consensus of the RfC was that it be removed from articles. Several admins have been doing this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

This is being discussed on ANI. Any admin reviewing this is invited to join that discussion first.-- Scott Mac 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Very poor block in my view... -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Concur that this was a poor block. R. Baley ( talk) 21:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The block was regrettable and had its desired effect. We've all put the tools down and have started to talk. That's the way forward here. I'm sure a resolution can be found.-- Scott Mac 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you seriously not realize that you are flirting with being desysopped over this, Scott? If your desired effect was to get a lot of people angry with you and waste a few hours of my time, yes, it did something. Other than that, not so much: pending changes will be removed from virtually all articles on Wikipedia within a week. You will be far better off trying to figure out whether the articles you are concerned with require full-protection or not, or making some kind of strong, strong argument that the two articles you are risking your adminship over truly cannot be served by any other protection mechanism. "Scott thinks PC is hunky-dory" or the equivalent isn't going to cut it.— Kww( talk) 21:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no issues with pending changes being removed from virtually all articles within a week. I've never been its greatest fan anyway, and I've always opposed its mass use as pointless. I have a problem with the way this has been handled and with the mantra that there cannot be exceptions. There are exceptions to every rule in wikipedia. The trial is over. Fine by me. I didn't participate in it, and didn't set any protections as part of it. However, I have used FR as one of the tools available to respond to BLP needs on particular articles. If that's to be removed it needs care. Your "well I'm just taking it away from them all now, and someone else can clean up any mess" approach isn't one we need near BLPs. It is dogmatic precisely where care, specific judgement and creative flexibility are needed.-- Scott Mac 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What makes you feel that Kww is NOT reviewing each article and assigning protection accordingly as he stated? Jarkeld ( talk) 21:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And yet, you haven't been able to demonstrate a single case of poor judgment on my part with regard to selection of an appropriate reprotection level. You haven't produced a single argument for why the two articles that you have wheel-warred over are two exception cases. But you have had time to criticize my judgment and techniques without providing a single concrete example of any damage done, block me, and open an Arbcom case against me when your best strategy would have been to duck your head and hope no one noticed the things you had done.— Kww( talk) 21:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

First the case isn't against you. I have not asked, and would not support, any sanction against you. The case was to get a cessation to allow the issues to be addressed. There's no way the type of with the speed you were removing flagging at, and without inviting comment from the person setting the flagging, you can know whether your choice of unprotection or semi-protection would be adequate. Maybe, in fact, in most cases it will - but neither of us can be confident of that - and we always take the most cautious attitude with BLPs. Look, I do think one of the reasons we're at loggerheads is probably a failure on both our parts to differentiate between the majority of BLPs where flags were set "as part of the test". In these cases, the test being over, resetting to the protection level before the test is probably fine. But there are other cases where the admin has used the tool in response to a specific BLP problem with the article. In such cases, we need to revisit the issue and see if it can be adequately addressed with another tool. Perhaps in most cases it could be. But pragmatism is the watchword with BLPs I'm thinking the result of that failure to differentiate is that I've seen you as BLP-sloppy and you've interpreted me as opposing the end of some trial. As I say, I've no dog in that fight.-- Scott Mac 21:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You do have a dog in the fight. You've recently edited Barry Chamish and the edits don't seem related to enforcing the BLP policy. You're emotionally involved in BLP issues, in a way that isn't good for you or the project. You wheel-warred against two admins who were removing PC from that and other articles in accordance with the RfC consensus. Then you blocked one of them because you disagreed, and though there was clear consensus against you at AN/I, you threatened to block again.

There couldn't be a clearer example of what "involved" means, and if you really can't see that, I urge you to give up—or at least stop using—the tools temporarily before you lose them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think Scoot is referring when he says he doesn't have a dog in the fight to the actual pending protection discussion. I haven't seem him comment in the recent discussions and he didn't even comment or vote in the last RFC regarding ending the trial. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed, terrible block. Claiming the purpose of a block is to get admins "to put down their tools" is laughable. - Kingpin ¹³ ( talk) 21:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker)Just noticed this on my watch page. Crazy block for no visible damaging behaviour by an admin who is involved in the issue! -- Bill ^{( talk| contribs)} 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kww, I just want to put myself on record that this was a very bad block, and I'm so sorry that you had to be subjected to it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I commented at the PC talk page, but I also wanted to, like others here, go on record saying that this was an absolutely horrific block that should never have occurred. This could have been handled a lot better than it has been by the blocking administrator, and there was no grounds for a block. All you did was follow consensus. I don't agree with parts of the consensus, and clearly Scott doesn't either, but that is no grounds to oppose consensus. Consider me a witness having reviewed the histories. CycloneGU ( talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hilariously, he didn't follow proper blocking procedures, either. He didn't place a blocked template and meanwhile we have an unblock template. CycloneGU ( talk) 04:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have filed a request for arbitration. May I yet again request you desist from mass-unflagging of BLPs, without discussion, until arbcom can consider this.-- Scott Mac 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Added a statement, though I'm really hoping a case doesn't open. That screws the whole process, and look how long it took to get it moving. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Would you be willing to put the last hours aside (I'm not asking you to agree with my actions, or even to refrain for calling for me to be desysopped) and see if we can actually get some agreement.

The starting point would be:

1. We agree that FR should be removed from virtually all articles without any feet-dragging or unnecessary delays per the RFC.
2. We agree that there need to be care taken with all the BLPs that were flagged.
3. We may or may not agree that there may be exceptional BLP cases where there's a discussion to be had over retaining FR.

My suggestion would be

1. We identify all BLPs which were +flag before the deflagging began. (List)
2. We divide them between (a) those set for "BLP violations" and (b) those explicitly set as part of the
3. We notify all the admins who set +flag for BLP violation reasons.
4. We set up a discussion list for the BLPs where someone says "hang on"
5. BLPs in (a) can be deflagged and returned to their protection level before the test, unless someone sees a specific reason why not. No discussion is needed here unless someone asks for it.
6. BLPs in (b) should be given (say) a week for the protector to respond. If in that week the protector or any admin indicates an objection, that specific article is moved to the discussion list.
7. At the end of a week, you will have FR off most BLPs - except for a small number which need discussion and consensus. It may be that we can even remove FR from these by getting lots of people to watchlist them. But we take each on its merits.

Any thoughts?-- Scott Mac 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I think what you aren't taking into account is that there are editors that will use any review process to drag things out indefinitely. That's why a mechanism that was enabled as a two-month test nearly a year ago is still lingering on. There's never been a consensus to keep using it, but it just hasn't been allowed to die. There was even a second "drop-dead" date in December, and it took five months to get people to agree that December had already gone past.

I actually object to the idea that an article that was placed on PC after the trial was over is somehow a special case to be preserved. Articles like that were protected invalidly in the first place: there wasn't a consensus to keep PC, it shouldn't have been available to the admin at the time of protection, so you can actually make an argument that the protection should get reset automatically without review.

My personal belief is that PC is never a better solution than semi-protection, and is really a misguided effort to fix the base problem, which is that we can't effectively block editors. We should allow protection of individual articles against IP ranges, and we should expose the IP address of each and every editor on each and every edit. Do that, and you will see vandalism and BLP violations plummet. While I am willing to listen to an argument for there being an article where PC is the only effective solution today, no one has identified one yet.

Individual admin judgment, with review by other admins, should be up to the task without special mechanisms. If someone wants to make an argument that an article has to be placed back on PC, that's the time to get a process involved: demanding that a non-standard form of protection be applied to an article should be difficult, should require consensus, and full protection will suffice while the discussion is going on.— Kww( talk) 23:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem with that argument is that it assumes the problems come from IPs. They often don't. It also assumes that the admin notices that you've removed flagging and is about reasonably soon after to say "hang on semi-protection won't work in this case". I often get BLP problems where long-term bad edits are routinely coming from confirmed users (sometimes in good faith, but still BLP bad) on to underwatched articles. Previously, I used to pop onto IRC and badger several admins to watchlisting the article, so I'd know that long-term it would be monitored. Lately I've sometimes used FR because it would have the same effect. (And at least I would check the edit before its publication if noone else did.) Now, if someone comes and takes FR away from that article, semi-protection will not help. The only thing that will help is badgering people to watchlisting it. So, two things. a) I'm opposed to a blanket ban on FR for BLPs. These are special cases, difficult enough to solve, and admins should be able to use all the tools imaginable. In any case, all "rules against" on wikipedia are subject to IAR in some cases. but b) even if FR must be removed from all these BLPs (and no one has ever explained how that helps improve those articles) but even it, then we really need to check with the admin, so we can make sure the alternative protections will do the job - and that may mean getting lots of watchlists on some article. You seem to have left either no protection or semi-protection. Are you really confident all the cases you've unprotected will be adequately covered by that?-- Scott Mac 23:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm fairly confident that semi-protection will handle most cases. It's our reluctance to use it that causes the problems. As for my assumption that problems are caused by IPs, I'm well aware that they aren't. That's why I think we need to stop hiding the IPs for named accounts: if the article is getting vandalized by someone, I should be able to protect the article against his range of addresses and have that protection work whether he is logged in or not. Yes, it's another change to protection mechanism, but it's one that would actually work.

I think a watchlist of unwatched articles that admins could access would handle remaining issues. The combination would be more effective and less labor intensive.— Kww( talk) 23:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Such a watchlist might be more effective. It however does not currently exist. I have to use what does. BLP violations are sometimes complex and subtle and not from IP ranges and not like vandalism at all.-- Scott Mac 23:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If I may butt in with a thought... The Fox and the Hound is not a BLP, but there is a long-term disruptive editor, User:Bambifan101, who has found ways around semi-protection for years. PC was enabled by me in March of this year per an ANI consensus, but it was removed by an administrator implementing the consensus of the RfC on May 15th. Bambifan vandalized the article just six days later, despite not having any problems since PC was enabled. Now, I'm not arguing for this article to receive PC again – after all, it's just an old movie – but I'm sure there are at least a couple of parallels in the BLP category. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I remember the case well: I had placed the article under full protection, and you downgraded it to PC. I'd support putting it back to full: there won't be a valid edit to that article in the foreseeable future.— Kww( talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict):::::Side note: I just noticed that you were the one to full-protect the article right before my action, Kww. Sorry to bring this up again. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thoughts: Sounds like reasonable proposals, so maybe you can propose them, and see if you can get consensus. Meanwhile, please accept current consensus.  Chzz   ►  02:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I put Peaches (pornographic actress) back to semi-protection, and there is a pretty strong case for that based on the OTRS ticket Jclemens referenced (I'm not sure you can see that, if you can, take a look). Whatever the fate of PC is, IP's have been nothing but problems there. Courcelles 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kww, this is exactly the problem. I'm sure you are being as careful as you can. But that PC was set with an OTRS ticket referenced. It should not have been deflagged without first an OTRS admin checking the ticket and ensuring that an alternative form of protection was in place that was adequate. You may be a very careful admin, but you will miss things (we all do). Notifying the protecting admin, and asking them to review the protection level is an easy safeguard.-- Scott Mac 02:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I just did the same for Tony Meléndez. Going from PC2 and semi to total unprotection without discussion on BLP's is a step too far. Though I'm not convinced PC has any benefits, the articles that got to PC2 usually did so for very good reasons, and shouldn't be totally unprotected. Courcelles 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there some reason Tony Meléndez is now semi'd? If that article went to RFPP today and someone asked for it to be semi'd, would it be reasonable for an administrator to act on that request? I can't see anything in the recent edit history to justify semi protection. Protonk ( talk) 03:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

As for Peaches, I find the protection based on an OTRS ticket a pretty weak argument for that one. It's an article on a Hungarian porn star that was being blanked by a Hungarian IP for a short while three months ago. The difference between the version the IP was intent on blanking and the current one is this. The only possible BLP issue is whether a woman that participates in lesbian sex on camera for a living can be placed in an LGBT category, and that's not much of a BLP issue.

As for Tony Meléndez, the only edit since Oct. 2010 was this. There's no way that any objective view of that edit history would warrant protection. I won't undo anything you've done, but there's nothing in either case that justifies protection.— Kww( talk) 02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

For Peaches, all I'm going to say is that you are not an Oversighter or OTRS agent, and have missed the bigger problem because of that. I won't say anything to indicate what that problem was. Courcelles 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No problem. That's why I said anyone that wanted to increase any protection I had placed was free to do so.— Kww( talk) 02:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

What you unprotect BLPs and trust that if you leave them vulnerable because you are not in possession of all the facts, you'll hope that someone will notice and clean up your mess. "Oops, I made a mistake. We really do need to do this in a more collaborative to ensure we don't drop the ball on a BLP" would be a better response.-- Scott Mac 03:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

If you had actually taken the time to review my actions instead of reacting as you did, you could have caught the mistake more rapidly. Wouldn't that have been a better response on your part?— Kww( talk) 03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

No. Making sure proper safeguards are in place to prevent mess, is better than saying "anyone with concerns should just clean up after me".-- Scott Mac 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You do realise that I reject your premise that I acted irresponsibly in any way, don't you? One demonstrated mistake is far from a mess.— Kww( talk) 03:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's what's troubling. Are you sure it was just one mistake? I couldn't review as many articles as you did with such self-confidence.-- Scott Mac 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Given that I've published a list of all articles I unprotected and my logs have been reviewed by friend and foe alike, I'm reasonably confident. Most of the articles I unprotected would never have been protected if someone had taken them to RFPP. Many of the articles I protected never would have been protected if taken to RFPP. I erred heavily on the side of protecting things.— Kww( talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

hhhh...etc.

Whatever vestige of faith I had in consensus has been eradicated by the recent action in blocking you.

I will write more later, I imagine.  Chzz   ►  02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I've come to terms that this is the best solution and the confusing mind of Disney has set a standard that makes people go crazy with the back and forth and such. I'll just let everything go and just add to the article and prevent any vadalism as what an Editor should do. - Alec2011 ( talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I am contacting directly you because you have edited Wikipedia talk:Record charts more than once in the last two weeks. The following templates are at issue at The Beatles:

See Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do not use an edit summary like "wasting time, per Arbcom injunction" when unsemiprotecting articles. My concern is not the feelings of my arbitrator colleagues, but that the edit summary will be incomprehensible and seem unprofessional to editors on the article who might have occasion to review the history and are not familiar with the pending-changes dispute. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. Look we're not going to agree on a load of stuff, but in response to iridescent's question about where you and I stand, let me say a few things.

1. I believe everything you were doing was done in good faith, and with the earnest desire to carry through the consensus to end the PC trial. Although I had a quarrel with the way you went about it, I have never believed you have done anything which requires any sanction (or indeed any real examination) by arbcom.
2. I blocked you because I believed the way you were removing changes was putting particular BLPs at risk, and you declined a request to stop and talk. I know that block has been controversial, and I understand your annoyance at it, but it was in no way punitive, or a reflection on your good faith.
3. My filing the arbitration was in no sense "against you". I sought no sanction. Indeed, I filed the case in the realisation that my request for an urgent pause was not best pursued by blocks, and I was seeking a simple pause until we might examine the impact on BLPs.
4. I neither seek, nor will support, any formal sanction against your actions.
5. I apologise for blocking you. In hindsight, I ought to have gone straight to arbcom and asked for a pause to be ordered. That would have allowed for discussion without the heat that occurred.
6. While you and I do not agree on whether BLPs were at risk, or whether one admin reviewing a mass of articles was enough, I have appreciated the opportunity to exchange views, and I am in agreement with you that the arbcom injunction probably goes too far, and allows too little scope for admin judgement. The latest version SlimVirgin suggested, while not meeting all my concerns, would be a significant improvement.
7. Lastly, I thank you for your reserve in what you have submitted to arbcom.
8. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a supporter of flagged revisions in the form it was being trialled, and have no objections to the trail being ended. By concern, which I now accept may be idiosyncratic to myself, was with blanket actions on specific BLPs.

I bear no grudges (such things are useless on Wikipedia) I hope this may help put the drama (if not the genuine disagreements in perspective) behind us. Thanks.-- Scott Mac 17:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

How do u put a security lock on a article? Dbunkley6 ( talk) 18:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! at the arbitration case (section "The Timeline"), the following statement...

• 05/21 16:25 Scott replies that his personal view of what BLP requires overides the consensus at the RFC.

...might be better if the URL...

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Scott_MacDonald&oldid=430212314

...was replaced with the URL...

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AScott_MacDonald&action=historysubmit&diff=430212314&oldid=430197642

Is there a barnstar I can award you for "most obviously innocent person ever falsely accused of wrongdoing on Wikipedia?" (smile). Guy Macon ( talk) 02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I see that at least one arbitrator says he will decline the case if you agree to "kiss and make up." I would hate to see that happen without Scott acknowledging that using admin tools in a dispute is wrong and also agrees to abide by consensus. If this goes away without him agreeing to those two things, I have a legitimate fear that I, as a vocal opponent of the trial being extended without consensus, may become his next victim. I was planning on participating in the next phase and supporting PC being done the right way, but I will not participate if a rogue admin is holding a gun to my head with the implied treat that he might block me or take away my reviewer privileges should I express an opinion he doesn't approve of. Guy Macon ( talk) 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm really not sure what you are asking. I agree to abide by consensus, except in the very rare occasion where consensus violates policy. Consensus is that the PC trial is over. I will abide by that. (Indeed, I never supported the trial in the first place - so I'm unopposed to ending it). Consensus may not, however, create rules that brook no exceptions - because the right of people to ignore any rule in an exceptional case is enshrined in policy. Of course, if you think something justifies being an exception, you must be prepared to make your case, and if, having done that, consensus is that an exception is not justified in that particular instance, one must (and I agree to) abide by that consensus. Blocking in a dispute? With hindsight, I should have found a better way to handle that. All I wanted was Kww to pause and talk - that we might find a safer way to handle BLPs (through consensus). I wasn't trying to "win a dispute", I was just trying to pause what I believed to be detrimental to BLPs so a discussion could occur about the means to do it. I reported the block to ANI, which I always do with blocks that aren't pure vandalism (so if I did ever threaten to block you, you can be certain that I couldn't have you blocked for personal reasons - it would just get undone), so there could be a consensus on what to do. It was very quickly removed - but I'd have removed it myself, because Kww had paused to allow discussion by then. That discussion might well have reached a consensus I didn't like, and I'd have abided by that. As for removing reviewer privileges, I'd strongly suggest that any new version of PC needs to have clear guidelines about when reviewer rights can be removed - and equally when they can be granted. One of the problems with this one is that it had neither. Personally, I'd rather see them given out only after careful discussion, and in which case removal should require the same.-- Scott Mac 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

The second clause is really less important. You wheel warred over an article then blocked an admin with whom you were in a dispute. That's the problem. A secondary problem might be that you invoked the divine right of BLPs to rationalize your decision, but that's hardly as clear cut. Protonk ( talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Scott, I read your comments above three times and I still don't know whether you agree to never again use admin powers in a dispute you are involved in. Could you clarify? If you are in a dispute of any kind, you need to act as if you were an ordinary editor and request that an uninvolved administrator take whatever admin actions you think are needed, just like all the ordinary editors have to do. I have seen dozens of cases where admins do this where there is a mere hint of them being involved. Would you agree to doing that? This would mean that instead of using admin tools to "try to pause what you believe to be detrimental to BLPs so a discussion could occur about the means to do it" you would ask another admin to use his admin tools to enforce the pause, using the same request methods that I or any other ordinary editor would use. This would mean that if you believe that you are encountering a "very rare occasion where consensus violates policy" and are in any way involved, you will ask another uninvolved admin to use his admin powers to deal with the policy violation. As an ordinary editor, I need to have 100% assurance that I can disagree with an admin without him using his admin powers on me. I need to know that any admin who takes action against me is completely uninvolved and impartial. Are you willing to promise me that this will be always be true when ordinary editors interact with you? Guy Macon ( talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Also see this. Guy Macon ( talk) 10:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Scott, I see that you are continuing to discuss this in various places without actually agreeing to never again use admin powers in a dispute you are involved in. If it is your intention to choose to not answer that question, please say so and I will stop asking. You have stated that you don't think you did anything wrong, but that assertion seems to have been completely refuted with a simple statement of the facts. Guy Macon ( talk) 11:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you ask me the quesiton in one place. I have answered it the best I can, but perhaps if you asked a less loaded question.-- Scott Mac 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Note: Scott answered the question ' here so there is no need for further discussion about it on this page. Guy Macon ( talk) 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kww. This comment is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. I have removed your responses to other participants from the BLP and flagged revisions case request, because your statement was well in excess of the 500 word limit. As a reminder, the word limit is established in the introduction to WP:A/R/C thus: "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible.") I will leave it to you to re-add the material that you want to keep, but please ensure that your statement does not again exceed the length restriction. Thank you. AGK [ • 21:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

you dont know the box office results of her movies in that country because if you do that isnt puffery merely a description of what she has achieved. Just like what is stated i wiki rules that state the just facts. Her movies are consistent box office hits and her movie You Changed My Life is the Philippines Highest Grossing Film of all time. Articles stated that she is the box office queen of this generation in that country. Any questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazee99 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello kww. i think you dont know the box office results of her movies in that country because if you do that isnt puffery merely a description of what she has achieved. Just like what is stated i wiki rules that state the just facts. Her movies are consistent box office hits and her movie You Changed My Life is the Philippines Highest Grossing Film of all time. Articles stated that she is the box office queen of this generation in that country. Any questions? i will clarify them up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazee99 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

the box office queen award is a legitimate award given to the lead star of the highest grossing film of that year. Guillermo Mendoza Memorial Scholarship Foundation Inc. is an awarding body that gives recognition to such artist. It is a yearly award in the Philippines and it has always been for 40 years. It is a widely recognized award giving body in Philippines. ^{[1] [2] [3]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazee99 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, do you think you could use that soft block thing you used the other time? The fanboy is back as 2.33.80.129 ( talk · contribs). Thanks! Snap Snap 22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm curious as to why you indefinitely blocked User:Routerone, but didn't mete out the same consequences to User:John Foxe. Both are coming off of the same short block for edit warring, and both seemed to have returned to the same edit warring behavior. In fact, I would say that John Foxe's recent edit warring was far worse on that page - 6 reverts in the last 48 hours, including a (imo) clear 3RR violation ( [11], [12], [13], [14]) - the fifth violation he's done in a about five weeks. I guess I fail to see how Routerone's behavior is considered chronic edit warring and deserves an indefinite block, but John Foxe's behavior isn't and doesn't? -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 04:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

(cross-posting since I don't know if you're willfully ignoring me or just missed the talkback notice)

When someone has the wherewithal and the authority to do something, but only suggests that others do that something, frankly that's a cop out. You as an admin can very easily look at Foxe's recent behavior, make a judgement and do something similar to what you've done with Routerone. Per the Administrative guidance at WP:EW, "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." From your statements it appears that this did not happen and the perceived unfairness is what is rubbing me the wrong way. I'm not saying that Routerone's block is unmerited. I am saying that I don't understand how both of these editors can come off the same block, both engage in edit warring behavior and yet Routerone is the only one coming off with harsh consequences while John Foxe gets his umpteenth warning. Take Routerone out of the equation for a minute. You have an editor who has violated 3RR five times in five weeks on one page. Note also that this edit warring doesn't involve a revert the edits of just one other editor, but involves John Foxe reverting multiple contributions of at least a half-dozen other editors. No other editor has crossed the 3RR line on this same page during that same time period. The last 3RR incident comes right after the editor comes off of a short edit warring block. Does this editor's behavior meet your definition of chronic edit warring? If not, why not?

In addition, I don't see any hope that someone who clearly states that " I do believe Mormons here are 'desperately trying to hide the Church’s dark origins.' " will ever be capable of collaborative editing on LDS articles without edit warring. Do you? -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin, we have another case of a Gaga song being created out of the gate based on its charting. These are all getting kinda out of hands now. How can we stop this? WP:NSONGS really needs to be upgraded to make it tight. There are so many loopholes in it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

As a nominator to many song deletion pages, as well as a believer in enforcing this, I completely agree. The song holds nowhere nearly enough information and coverage to merit its own article.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin,

This is regarding the article Vanniyar. Thanks for making the article protected. I would like to improve the article by cleaning it up and citing references, making corrections etc. Please let me know how I can do this, because I am not able to edit the article as of now. Looking forward for your inputs.

Thanks, Kalingarayar ( talk) 11:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello! I just wanted to inform you that Nelly Furtado is not just an artist of the pop genre. I've heard all her albums and I know that for a fact. Whoa, Nelly! her first album had a trip hop sound with folk and electronic elements, while her vocals were mostly R&B. Folklore her second album was majorly folk and folk pop along with an overall acoustic and rock feel to it. Some songs were also of the blue-eyed soul and world music genre. Loose was dance-pop, R&B and hip-hop. Mi plan was latin music and pop latino. I know that the genres were unsourced, but rather than just wiping them away, why don't you help me in finding some references. Please! Thank you! Manas justice ( talk) 09:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Maybe this article will explain Nelly's eclecticism.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article719882.ece Manas justice ( talk) 10:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

This article should help as well..... Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).www.prefixmag.com/reviews/nelly-furtado/mi-plan/30327/ Manas justice ( talk) 10:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok. Thank you for enlightening me! But I think that you should atleast include folk and r&b as well because songs in both genres have been consistently performed by Nelly in most of her albums. By the way, the genre list that I had put up was actually very diluted. Nelly has performed in more than 50 different genres!!!

I think in the associated acts James Bryan should be included as well having worked with her on more than one album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manas justice ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I've only just realised that User:Dcupdates11 is a sockpuppet of User:Nevandc98. The latest SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nevandc98. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, could you comment there? Routerone has accepted 0RR as a condition of an unblock, but I'd rather that you as the blocker be the judge of their sincerity.  Sandstein  06:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for summing this up so well. I expect it's a "rope" case also, but I would love to be proven wrong. tedder ( talk) 14:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see you are familiar with a sockpuppeter called Wiki-11233 ( talk · contribs). Would you say that EachCoach2 ( talk · contribs) is possibly him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Possible, but not conclusive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki-11233 opened for a checkuser.— Kww( talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Great, thanks for getting it taken care of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm considering sticking {{ db-userreq}} on User:Alanyst/WFF since that dispute is now over two years old. Since you were involved in it, do you have any objections? I'm happy to keep it around if you feel it's still useful. alanyst 14:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

No problem, as long as you give me permission to undelete it if I think I need to point to it.— Kww( talk) 14:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

That's fine; you are free to undelete it at need without further permission from me. alanyst 14:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I know I asked your opinion before (when the user was new) but this editor keeps grabbing my attention. Do you think s/he has anything to do with User:TrEeMaNsHoE and his many socks? It just seems so familiar to me, but maybe I'm looking too hard for something that isn't there. - eo ( talk) 18:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply

ohh right ok, thanks. Yeah i asked that question then a massive thread started about things which had nothing to do with my question haha. calvin999 ( talk) 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply

... still causing trouble, removing BMI/ASCAP credits as seen here. He was previously blocked for similar behaviour at Born This Way (song). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kev, this IP 201.58.178.2 ( talk · contribs) has been going on adding the hot100brasil.com peaks for the songs in articles, while sourcing them falsely to Billboard Brazil magazine. I caught the tomfoolery today after my magazine arrived in mail. Can you please take a look? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you Kevin, I will revert from the remaining song articles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, there seems to be a small issue with re-directs or something of that nature. When you search for "Underneath the Stars" (its a Carey song), its an automatic re-direct to the 4:13 Dream, which has a song of the same title, but not one notable enough for its own page. I would like it if you can please remove that re-direct, and then i could possibly move the song to just "Underneath the Stars" since no other article has the name. Please and thanks Kevin!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, we seem to have the same person editing with two different accounts at List of best-selling music artists, Enriquetaha and Farid1374. These recent edits especially made me realize that, an edit made by Enriquetaha at 10:27 and an edit made by Farid1374 at 11:16. Both are the same exact edits and are made within a period of some 45 minutes apart. If you have the time, please take a look. Thanks.-- Harout72 ( talk) 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

That's what I was going to say and such type of behavior persists... Obvious socks, I think. Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

It's not that i do not know. I have forgotten his username on Wikipedia. And who told you i am the one adding those positions? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Please reply. I will go to bed in 30 minutes or a little more. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I think there is a difference between "adding" and "re-adding something that was removed", right? I explained my point on the IP page. Just because the position of Lady Gaga's song "Hair" seem to coincide. we cannot ignore those of other artists' songs whose chart positions are different from that on the bad chart. Do you get what i am telling? I know, i do not use a very good English. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by validated? Do you mean having a physical copy of the magazine? Please explain. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay. But Google does not have it. So will i be blocked now? Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry for late reply, as i told you, i would have gone to bed by that time. Hey as you know, i was blocked a lot of times when i came her in 2009 but i have changed now. You know i have, don't you? And all the mistakes i did, they were not intentional, i think we all pass through this phase before becoming a good editor (if i can apply this term to myself). I hope you have not kept anything against me because of the Afd of Freakum Dress. No offense, just asking. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the song is, in fact, certified Platinum by the RIAA. It may or may not be in the database as of this writing, but it is on the main RIAA page where it lists recent certifications.

I just wanted to clear this up so there wasn't any confusion in the future. Thanks. EnDaLeCoMpLeX ( contributions) • ( let's chat) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you please protect those pages? He insists in edit Ray of Light (song). ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you. ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply

86.156.238.54 ( talk · contribs) Guess who? ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin what do you think of the edits of Gabiarakelian ( talk · contribs) and Gaga690 ( talk · contribs)? Both seem to have a common interest in Britney Spears' album Femme Fatale and its corresponding tour, and both are edit warring with Iknow23 ( talk · contribs) over a date of a song in the inforbox, although there is an open discussion in the talk page. I do believe these might be sock of each other. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Now an 92.20.4.61 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now at it too... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Stopped after final warning, so I'm not going to block now. Let's keep an eye on this.— Kww( talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin one request, when you block this bugger's IPs can you please block talk page accesses also to stop abusing other users? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not from Brazil, but I know that the only source available to support these positions is the magazine itself. However, the peak position to "On the Floor" in Brazil's Hot 100 Airplay is #15. I'm not sure of the second. VítoR™ ^{get LOUD!} 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey Kww, since you seem to have a better grasp on {{ Singlechart}} than I do, I wanted to point out that all links to Billboard need to be changed to take the form of http://www.billboard.com/#/song/artist/artistid, for example, http://www.billboard.com/#/song/Evanescence/8222332. Good grief, I'm getting tired of Billboard changing their link format. — Huntster ( t @ c) 03:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm considering a parameter to build links in that format, but that isn't what singlechart builds. Those are the song pages, and I build links to the chart pages, like http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/evanescence/chart-history/510526?f=381&g=Singles .— Kww( talk) 04:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand that, but the proposed link goes directly to the chart page for the given song (rather than to a general page for the artist) which would seem to be more useful for chart citation purposes. Not to mention, if that format is used, all Billboard links for a given song could share a single citation, rather than trying to generate a new one for each cite. — Huntster ( t @ c) 05:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

That's why I've been thinking about it. The number isn't the "artistid", though: it's another number, that I'd probably call "songid". I'll also have to figure out a way to name the refs automatically. The big point is that it isn't a change to existing refs. I have to figure out a way to select either one, depending on the parameters.— Kww( talk) 10:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, the artistid issue was something I quickly noticed...given that it has been deployed quite widely, I would suggest just making songid "redirect" to artistid...{{{artistid|{{{songid}}}}}}...since their functionality is essentially identical. It would just be an issue of clarity, and would keep all existing uses intact. — Huntster ( t @ c) 10:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

They are separate numbers, and can't be redirected to one another. Even if I support a version with songid, I have to keep support for artistid forever. The main reason I'm looking at it is that there are cases where Billboard has its site screwed up, and either the chart page doesn't exist or the song page doesn't exist. Giving a choice makes it more likely that a reference can be provided that actually works.— Kww( talk) 11:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

He's back again as 69.115.82.63‎ ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), I've just done an IP block for a week, but he's been active since May 21 and there's a ton of articles. Any ideas? cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 19:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Did we ever have a ban discussion for him? I'm really sick of AGFing his socks and IP socks to then unearth his disruption at a later point. I'll look at some possible reverts, it's over 2000 edits and interspersed with other edits, so really painful. — Spaceman Spiff 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Ducking to me, but take a look at 12.196.0.56 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.197.112.12 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), the former is a mobile device, latter is the home network, same geolocation and ISP. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 10:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin Wayne Williams I had been in touch with Sarah Ewart and Joseph Evans of Wikimedia/Wikipedia information team and had given them links of the various historical changes associated with this profile "Meera Jasmine" via emails. The ticket number associated with this is [Ticket#2010030910028377.Starting from 2004, lots of obscene stuff had been entered into her profile by a vandal. I don't have the time right now, to search for those links(from 2004) but will mention the most recent vandal attacks here:

on January 13 2010, the vandal entered a column "DIED" and the day of her death as January 14 2010. Also under the spouse colume the name Josesph was entered. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meera_Jasmine&oldid=337540787

on January 19 and 20, lots of changes associate with her profile once again took place and it was entered by this Vandal that she was marrying "Vibin Joseph".

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meera_Jasmine&oldid=338961608

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meera_Jasmine&oldid=339132542

Since, 2003 or so, looks like this Vandal has been instrumental in "Spreading a number of Malicious Rumors" about her not only via. Wikipedia but also calling up various national newspapers in India, like the "Times Of India" etc and other electronic medium.

Hope this was helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicschool ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's another link from the Past, where in an anonymous Wikipedia editor typed in absolute rubbish into her profile. Check the section "Early Life"

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meera_Jasmine&oldid=132171500.

There have been quite a few edits in the Past, that have been downright malicious and insulting to her.

Cosmic ( talk) 06:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

The most DESPICABLE thing ever entered by this psychopath vandal was on September 27 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meera_Jasmine&oldid=24159392

- 
Cosmic (
talk) 07:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
reply

I'm seeing three problems:

• "; they'd been " -> We shouldn't use contractions on articles, "they had been" is the proper wording
• A missing space on "30"/>While", and
• "Marc Anthony." -> Per MOS:QUOTE. Feel free reverting me (fixing those problems). ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 03:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Kevin I have a question, I know that Pop 100 was discontinued, but why does Billboard still list it in recent songs? I was looking through my account in Billboard.biz for charts pertaining to Lady Gaga song " Yoü and I", and found a Pop 100 peak included also among the other charts. Do you know of this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

-- Sodabottle ( talk) 15:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Sodabottle keeps on chasing me and reverting my edits after a brawl in a social networking site. He has been blocked for revert wars already. He is becoming a Wikibully 59.96.216.209 ( talk) 07:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Sodabottle keeps on chasing me and reverting my edits after a brawl in a social networking site. He has been blocked for revert wars already. He is becoming a Wikibully 59.96.216.209 ( talk) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Just see. I will make an edit in Chera dynasty page and he will revert or one of his socks will revert in 5 minutes. 59.96.216.209 ( talk) 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

And now, they have branded me as a sock and protected the article. All of 'them' are socks of one and only a single individual named Sudarshan. 117.206.98.106 ( talk) 08:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe Pé de Chinelo is back. We've dealt with him before. Do I have enough proof? :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Whups! Look like it was taken care of already. Nevermind! That was fast! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 06:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I mentioned your username at WP:AN, because of an issue you may be involved. The direct link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposing_community_ban_on_User:CharlieJS13. Thank you. Tbhotch. ^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I know there has been an issue with wrong Brazilian chart data being added lately. Is 201.58.134.8 adding the correct data, or could it be the same user with a dynamic IP address? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

They appear legitimate. I can never be sure, but at least they don't match a known bad chart, and they don't disagree with the entries in Portuguese Wikipedia.— Kww( talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This a legit edit? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The addition looked legitimate when it was done, but the site is down right now. I don't know if it's a temporary failure or a permanent one. If it comes back, I'll look harder.— Kww( talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Austrian_chart_and_Swedish_chart SJ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you please delete User:L-l-CLK-l-l-Tester or change it to a "vanished user" and delete the pages associated with it; I dont remember the password and im never going to use it again. Please and thanks :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin. I see you are aware of the brewing battle at her bio page. Please keep watch, as I fear a block will come for me for reversions. It appears they either don't or want to understand the independent rule, or her certifications argument. Thanks-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I noticed recently you blocked z33k for 72 days. This person seems to have a history of unwanted edits and has been warned countless times. Now they have decided to make daily unwanted edit the album page for the Red Hot Chili Peppers' I'm with You. When each album artcle was created we always went with the U.S. release date (in this case it is Aug 30 2011) to be consistant with all the other album articles/discography for the band. Even though this is NOT the first date of release (it's always released days earlier in other countries) it is the one the band promotes on their website, which is seen by every fan worldwide. The user continues to edit the page with the German release date of Aug 26, 2011 despite the Aug 30, 2011 release date being used for over a month in this and other band articles/disographies, something they tend to avoid when making their edits so the album page lists a different date than the main band article or discography. This person seems to have zero other contributions to the article except for their daily edits to the release date. Anytme I chane it back to the original Aug 30 date this person edits it the next day.

Please if possibble either keep a watch on this article or step in if you can. I have been part of the Wikiproject for this band since 2006, keeping it updated/cleaned up more than most. I also do the same for the album article, which I helped to create/form. So far this is the only so-called edit war I have been invovled with but clearly not the first for this other user. I was unsure what else to do because the daily careless edits are getting to be annoying. Jason1978 ( talk) 06:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I've been meaning to drop you a note about Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require_all_new_articles_to_contain_at_least_one_source since I first saw it. The proposal is doomed (2:1 against), but if your reasons are different from the ones already suggested by other editors, then I'm sure that Floydian (the proposer) would be happy to hear from you. He entertains some hope of refining his arguments and perhaps someday gaining support for the concept. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

We have an editor Sufur222 who constantly inserts positions for Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles and Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles at Eminem discography and others. He claims on my talk page in this edit that they are ok to use because Bubbling under... charts are simply extensions of Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. While I have removed Bubbling under... positions from Eminem discography because I think the two should not be mixed together, I'd like to be 100% sure if the bubbling positions do really have any direct relation with the main charts (Hot 100 and R&B) as Sufur222 claims. Are they really extensions of the main charts? We don't seem to have any sources supporting those claims at the wiki pages.-- Harout72 ( talk) 00:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kevin.-- Harout72 ( talk) 02:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply

At least, I think it is. It's an IP trying to canvass people. See this message left on my talk page. Nymf _hideliho! 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Technically all of the below-top 50 positions in Australia on the Selena Gomez & the Scene discography are unsourced, as is the supposed #78 in the UK for "A Year Without Rain" and #168 for "Love You Like a Love Song", as the source provided is only the OCC's Top 75.

I'm pointing this out because it's a bit of a double standard to remove my recent additions of below-top 50 peaks in Australia, but leave intact the old ones, or the ones from other countries (of which I'm not sure you're familiar with). The same goes for the Foo Fighters' discography: Where's the source for #55 in Australia for "Rope"? Same with the #121 for "The One" in the US, which is not covered by the Billboard reference. I'm not saying this to excuse myself, but selecting just my additions seems like a bit of an oversight. Ss 112 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

In case you aren't aware: 69.115.82.63 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Blocked again today and now unblock declined too. — Spaceman Spiff 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I opened a talk page post at Talk:Speak_Now#SYN:_Total_sales regarding the material I reverted to Speak Now. Would you mind adding your thoughts on the matter? Dan56 ( talk) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 01:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, hope you are doing well. I came to ask your opinion on the matter, to see if you think its even worth the discussion and campaign. Now, I know cover versions of songs are usually always one article, but I was wondering what you thought about possibly separating the Carey version. Thing is, with all three high profile versions on that page, it will become an incredibly large article ("Hero" alone is almost 75K and this one is arguably more notable in many regions). I fear the page will become very difficult to navigate, and very large to load etc. What do you think about proposing a split? I'm sure exceptions have been made in the past. Thanks!-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm actually not aware of any exceptions, and don't think that this one needs to be one. Cutting out the clutter, such as the "track listing" section, which I would happily delete from all articles, and the text recap of the chart performance, and things should stay quite manageable. Focus on critical reception, keep in mind that Mariah Carey is the focus of the article, and everything will be OK.— Kww( talk) 11:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I see. Well that's not the answer I was hoping for, but I guess I could work with that. Thanks.-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Just thought I would point out to you that the US chart positions for the Foo Fighter's singles "The One" and "Let it Die" are not impossible as you say they are. They actually charted on the Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 which is an extension of the Hot 100. For example "The One" charted at number 21 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 which means it got to number 121 on the Hot 100. However as that particular table only states the Hot 100 I am not going to change your edits. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The above user's edits are somewhat similar to that of Punkox ( talk · contribs). Can you take a look Kevin? Novice7 ( talk) 04:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Lol i'm so sorry! I didn't realize I made that edit. I just installed Twinkle and I accidentally pressed "Vandalism" on one of his edits. Pancake ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, so we had an AfD for this article, and the result was to merge it with Rainbow. I do not know how to merge those things, and how to close the page for good once its been merged. Can you help me? Thanks! :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I can do the mechanics, but can you give me a clue as to why Rainbow is a target?— Kww( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Sure. The consensus was to merge with Rainbow because it is the album that was released closest in date to it, and under the same label. Think of it as Gaga releasing a limited edition EP now to Wal-mart. We would probably wind up either deleting it if there was no available information on it, or merge it with Born This Way. Make sense? :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Again. Any updates? :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Kevin, the Template that we use for the singles' tables seems to produce an incorrect chart provider for Switzerland, see this for example. It reads Media Control AG. Does Media Control GfK International work with official Swiss charts provider, Hitparade? I don't think it does. I tried to discuss this at the Template talk:Singlechart, but that page doesn't seem to be on anybody's watchlist, I got no replies. Anyways, I changed the incorrect Media Control Charts for Switzerland to Schweizer Hitparade, but it didn't seem to affect the tables anywhere including this. Are they all being fed on from another Template page? I was under the impression I made the correction on the right page.-- Harout72 ( talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll look into this this evening. My response time is slower now that I have an actual full-time job.— Kww( talk) 11:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems to be producing the correct name now, I'm not sure why it took this long for it to work, but it's working now.-- Harout72 ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

User talk:PD.Baker24 really worth unblocking? 6 months off and they still fail to figure out what got them blocked in the first place and are still making the same incorrect edits. WP:COMPETENCE is lacking (no offense to them), EG: Twitter as a source. The only reason they confessed to socking is because i caught them "I have begun editing on July 23, 2011 to update Wikipedia" he/she has said it like 4 different times "im new here" and thats what tipped me off because of the continual restating of this. If they get unblocked, i dont think it will be long before they're reblocked. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yah i cant figure out where the "6month" thing is coming from either, i checked all the socks talk pages and blocks and couldn't find a thing. Im wondering if the emailed in requesting an unblock (because of no talkpage access) and got told to wait 6 months. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply