hi, just wanted to inform you that i have edited this page so your spoken version of it must have become outdated (tho i did not listen to it). please delete this bit after reading. thanks. peet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke.peet ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you back? :-D I hope so. You've been missed around these parts. I passed 120,000 edits in your absence. I know I know. :) I'm actually considering going for CheckUser under the new policy. I know I'm qualified. It's really just a matter of deciding whether I want the responsibility. Anyway. Drop me a line and let me know how you are doing. If you are back, it's nice to have you around again. :) -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not exactly back, but neither am I not back. ;-) I'm just always hanging around, sometimes doing a little here or at Wiktionary or even Wikisource, when I'm in the mood. But I'm still much more busy in my studies than I used to be, though. I think you'd be great at CheckUser. Are you experienced in the technical aspects of it? Just be aware that it's a job that can often be stressful and frustrating, as well as tedious (which I know you're expert at), so you have to make sure you're ready before you commit yourself. Take it from me, it was a big relief when I resigned from that particular tool. :-) Dmcdevit· t 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well that's my thought process right now. The thing is, I obviously devote alot of time to Wikipedia, so that's not really an issue. I mean I'm averaging about 300-400 edits every day, so obviously, I have time. :) I'm somewhat familiar with the technical aspects of the position. It's really a matter of the stress. As you probably know, I've been avoiding stress on here for about 2 years now. :) But on the other hand, I know it's a very needed position and I think I'd do a good job. So we'll see. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Want to let me in on where you transwiki'd my article? -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Normally, a transwikied article goes to the transwiki namespace, so it will be at Transwiki:It is what it is. A Wiktionary editor will eventually reformat it to Wiktionary standards and move it to the main namespace, or you can go ahead and read the style guidelines and do it yourself. Dmcdevit· t 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, I'm just not sure how this falls under " A5" -- there was more information there other that "only of a dictionary definition." -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Dictionaries discuss words themselves, while encyclopedias discuss the concepts the words represent. So the rule of thumb is whether the article actually goes being merely describing the word. To me, the six sentences establish a definition and explanation of meaning, an alternative definition, two classifications for the phrase (a cliche and a tautology), and an early dating (etymology), but nothing beyond description of the words as words. Do you disagree? Dmcdevit· t 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, I looked at the refs again and they aren't as deep as I remembered. It's a fair call. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you revert this for me? It was a basic move. No idea what ClueBot off. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's weird. I've reverted it, though I think you would have been completely acceptable for you to revert something that obviously wrong yourself. The bot doesn't even have feelings to hurt. ;-) Dmcdevit· t 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I know, but I felt like it was more proper not to. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I think you want to rewrite you reason for proposing BEST Travel Source for deletion. Funny though:-) Rettetast ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, that was silly. I was copying and pasting the same summary to several articles, but I can't imagine what possessed me to write that. :-) Thanks. Dmcdevit· t 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

An anon messaged us saying that the audio for the article Julie Kirkbride contains an error. I'm not sure where the version you uploaded came from, but it was already in the original recording and the uploader edited the article to match his error in the text. [1] What is the origin of your file? - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The audio file is completely Yeanold Viskersenn's work. All I did was approve the file's move from Wikipedia to Commons. So I'm afraid I can't really help much. :-( Dominic· t 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

MSNBC Muse ( talk · contribs), who you recently indef blocked as a vandal, is asking to be unblocked. You might want to comment. — Travis ^talk 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Never mind, I see that the user is a sock. — Travis ^talk 17:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dom!

I reply to your message on RasterFaAye's discussion page regarding his removal of PRODs without giving a good summary. If you have a look at Bint, click the History' tab, and you will see that he removed my PROD from the article. There is alreay an entry on Wiktionary (see wikt:bint) so that's why I prodded it. He removed it with "Prodding no good, see edit history", I mean, WTF?! It's been transwikified and therefore it's no longer needed on Wikipedia.

In other words, I totaly agree with you about RasterFaAye.

-calvinps- ( talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, transwikied articles like that can usually be speedied. Try WP:CSD#A5. Dominic· t 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dmcdevit, you were the person who blocked my IP 84.45.219.185 - thank you for doing that. I apologise for the puerile behaviour from this IP. Since the offending computers had the OS re-installed and spyware cleaned, hopefully there should not be any more vandalism. I apologise for the compromised computers , but now that's been sorted, it shouldn't recur. -- Litherlandsand ( talk) 09:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dominic! Lookie Louis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked this morning for disruption with a bit of CU evidence, is now asking for a block review. I've told ANI that reviewer(s) can unblock without asking me, but I have requested that they ask you for confirmation first as the duty CU on the case. Sorry to volunteer you! ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'd rather not. I think it makes more sense if the CheckUser doesn't become involved in discussions over blocks, and restricts themselves to the technical evidence only. That way the evidence will be more credible, and they won't get stuck in the case where a CheckUser is advocating a block based on their own findings, and the impartiality of their findings become questioned. In any case, admins don't need a CheckUser's permission for anything; it's just an extra button to help fight abuse, not extra authority. Dominic· t 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

"Designed to be the opposite of copyright, a kopimi notice specifically requests that people copy the work for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial." says the article on the Pirate Party. ViperSnake151 20:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's what I read. It doesn't matter what the copyright holder's opinion of copyright is. If they want their work to be in the public domain, they have to release it. If that's the only text, then it is clear that they have not done so, or even released it freely. Being allowed to copy something is far different from being allowed to modify it and distribute derivatives, which is what Wikimedia requires. Dominic· t 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

...please don't forget to lock out his user talk page and email access as well. He's been known to abuse both of these unblock methods, and if we know it's him it's safer to knock them out ahead of time. Thanks! Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. Dominic· t 05:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hahaha, "safer". As if Grawp can harm the site through an unblock request. Pathetic. Incidentally ( talk) 12:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that two weeks ago (8-Feb-09) you deleted the Lessno page. May I ask what was the logic behind the deletion of the Lessno article? Thanks... Ned Terziev

Yes, the article was deleted as a result of the discussion in which you participated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessno. However, you recreated the article afterwards, and so it was deleted again. If you would like to create the article again, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review for requesting reassessment of the article, but you should not make it again without a discussion and approval, since it has previously failed such a discussion. Let me know if you need help with this, and sorry for the confusion. Dominic· t 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Where has it been transwikied to? DuncanHill ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It's at List of English irregular verbs. Just needs to be reformatted and moved to the Appendix namespace. Dominic· t 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Biehl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Dravecky ( talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Please discuss your recent changes to these article in the conversation about this in here. Thank you.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see any valid reason why you would remove all of those images before discussing it first on the articles. While it is a poor habit, I often do revert then discuss it. In Canadian television, there is little to no history known of why they choose that logo, except for certain occasions like CHEK-TV's checker board logo or their checkmark logo, which has to do with the station's name sounding those words. Most of the time only the date used is known. That's why there only the date is used.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not about to start a discussion before every time I make an edit to make an article conform to our non-free media policies. Your reason here is mistaken, in my opinion. It doesn't matter why there is no critical commentary on the fair use images, but the fact that there isn't—and apparently can't be since the sources don't exist—is even more reason why the images are superfluous and decorative, failing to meet our policy. If there is nothing that can be said about them, then they do not contribute significantly to the article. Dominic· t

If that's the case then, there are several American stations that can use your logo removal treatment like WGN-TV, KTLA-TV, KCOP-TV, KTTV-TV. I've found some commentary for the logos you removed again from previous revisions of the page.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You are just demonstrating how unnecessary most of that is. Wikipedia is a free content project, and restrictively-licensed media should be used sparingly. I would suggest you pick the logos that are truly important to the article and display those, but remove most of the existing ones. Dominic· t 07:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I can remove some of the logos that are of poor quality and the logos that are similar, if that makes it better. I have now removed 33% of the logos from the page.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I was thinking more like that you should choose the one or two that have real historical significance, and, along with the infobox image, keep those. But honestly, a gallery like that one is still only there for decorative purposes. Does the use of 10 logos really convey more information than 3 illustrative ones? Would the omission of several of the ones currently there be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the subject? I think the answer to these questions is "no," based on the lack of reference to the logos in the body of the text. Dominic· t 07:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I remember once I tried combining all of the previous logos before the checkmark logo that got deleted into a single file along with the descriptions. I still have it on my computer and I can show it to you if you want. This would eliminate many problems and would provide only ~4 non-free logos in the article (excluding the infobox).  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

An autoblock has caught User talk:Ren Newman and he is asking for the block to be withdrawn. As the account is very fresh and he's never edited outside his user talk page, I'm a bit suspicious. Hoping for input, so I've put the unblock request on hold. What do you think? Dekimasu よ! 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The block is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petersantos/Archive. All of the other accounts on the IP are related to that sockpuppetry, and there is no obvious sign that it's a shared IP, so I would be wary about unblocking that account unless he has a satisfactory explanation. Dominic· t 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I declined the request. Dekimasu よ! 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Out of interest, why have you removed the IP block exempt from User:SockOfPedro? Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I assumed you no longer needed it, as the UK blocking issues were resolved long ago. In any case, there is no real reason to have the flag on an account that is not in use, so I saw it as a maintenance issue. If there is some reason you need it, don't let me stop you. Dominic· t 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No, no issues, just saw it in the rights log and wondered if there was something specific I wasn't aware of. Pedro :  Chat  13:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You blocked an editor on my watchlist ( User:Richard Hock) with an edit summary of "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (CheckedSockpuppet|Pickbothmanlol)". The sockpuppetry case seems unrelated and doesn't name that editor, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to some sockpuppetry case. Did you refer to the wrong case? Am I missing something? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've rechecked the sockpuppetry case and there's no signed of the named editor. Can you clarify please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Tollund man was also blocked, but doesn't appear anywhere in the sockpuppetry case. Just thought I'd add that. Lychosis ^T/ C 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

(Sorry for not replying sooner.) I may have used the wrong block template here. However, what I meant wasn't that he was one of the accounts named in the last sockpuppetry case, but that he was a sockpuppet account discovered when the latest Pickbothmanlol sockpuppet (Tollund man) was checked by me, and was confirmed by CheckUser. See [2]. I have also received an email from this user, and I will see if there could be an innocent explanation for his sharing the same IP. Dominic· t 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am contemplating doing something extremely nasty to you. You reverted all my unblock declines. Why? You fucking prick... Incidentally ( talk) 12:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Already blocked. Mango juice ^talk 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. By "face the consequences" I didn't mean some kind of threat, but rather that PMK1, who began adding such POV material to the article, is practically asking for counter-material: the two ways to balance an article to NPOV are to have the POV content in balance or to remove it outright. Since administrators have reverted my removing of the Macedonian POV content, I tried to add a map that represents the other view, but I've been reverted several times now.

Thinking back, I should have been more careful in my wording, but I'm multitasking at the moment and I'm not a native speaker, so I realize now that it may have had an unintended threatening twist: I apologize for that :) My intention was to say that the user got what he should have expected to get.

I don't think those warnings were necessary though, I'm not a disruptive editor and I've been here long enough to know about WP:DR, edit warring, ABMAC and the like. You should have just assumed that, I believe. The article has been thoroughly POV-ized and I was merely trying to help balance it out or clean it up, that's why I've been insistent with the reverts. The removal of such useful, relevant content is basically bordering vandalism. Todor → Bozhinov 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Since apparently the AE discussion has already been archived, I'll reply here. I understand you are not a new editors, but I do feel that your behavior merited at least some kind of comment, if only to get you to think about what you were doing, since you clearly let the disagreement get heated. I think you need to be careful, because the attitudes of both you and PMK1, regardless of who is right, would really make editing those articles unpleasant for anyone else who wants to get involved. Your comment here about it being bordering on vandalism is part of that. I can easily tell that the reason you had the disagreement was because you both thought you were right. Vandalism is when you do something you know is wrong, to harm the project, not when you are acting in good faith. You can probably imagine how insulting it would sound if you are acting in good faith, then, and how it would hurt attempts to come to resolve a conflict. Dominic· t 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am sure that the conflict will be resolved. Your intervention could possibly be extended to the pag itself, no? PMK1 ( talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I admit I have a tendency to insist on certain revisions and thus engage in edit warring, but I'm almost always discussing the changes on the talk page. I've attempted several times to solve this issue to no avail: when people don't offer any sensible explanation as to why they're reverting me, I assume the dispute is either over or futile, and so I reintroduce these changes. I'm aware that these reverts are not "classic" vandalism, but as ungrounded, strongly POV-flavoured removal of relevant information, they are not far from it. Of course, you are right that PMK1 wasn't doing it to harm the project, but other than that, some features of vandalism are apparent.

He doesn't want images that represent the Bulgarian point of view included and he counters any attempt to reduce the number of Macedonian POV images, or at least images that are captioned in a POV manner. What I'm trying to do is, basically, have a more or less equal or balanced number of POV images or no POV images at all, in order to have some kind of NPOV.

I accept your advice that I should be more careful in my wording (didn't mean to offend PMK1 or anybody, he's actually a pretty reasonable (though a bit stubborn) guy compared to other people who share his views on the matters involved), but I still don't think there was anything that much wrong with my actions. I discussed, had no reasonable arguments presented against my point, and I made changes to the article. My edit summaries were more of a disagreement with the way the article has been going than some kind of anger.

Like PMK1 said, any third-party comments are welcome on the talk page. Todor → Bozhinov 11:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There are currently 2 users on the IP address 194.176.105.39 which you hard-blocked - AulaTPN and Toaster wasn't.... Is it okay to give these users an IPBE? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This is the IP used by Hamish Ross. As I noted when I made the block, I could see that some editors would be affected and would need IPBE (many on the IP already do). Just use your own best judgment as to whether it's an innocent user or a Hamish Ross sleeper account caught in the block. Dominic· t 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the info. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ya! Daniel ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It's a bit urgent. Thanks. -- Pixelface ( talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Makes sense. I would suggest that this be done in the open. I'm in Bali, as is well known, and as logs will show. Indeed, John has done a check and stated that Someguy1221 and I are on different parts of the globe. In all likelihood, Someguy1221 is not just not in my area but more like most of the way to the other side of the globe. aside; the antipode to Bali is in Columbia Colombia. Jack Merridew 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure what it is that you want in the open. I have double-checked John's findings and can confirm that Someguy1221 and Jack (who, apparently, can't spell Colombia ;-) ) are unrelated. Dominic· t 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

re Columbia vs. Colombia — I don't recall ever noticing the distinct spellings. To me, the primary usage of the term refers to Columbia University, so that's the spelling that my fingers emitted. This sort of thing is one of the reasons I frequent this site; I learn things everyday. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Maaf ( bahasa Indonesia for sorry re my spelling), and terima kasih (thank you) re the confirmation.

Elsewhere, Pixelface has asserted that he had 'evidence' and I feel that this mere assertion should be backed up, in an open manner, <joke>or an apology made</joke>. But that's just my take ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Happy Nyepi. reply

I emailed the evidence to Dominic, and he can confim that he received it. And it should not be made public, otherwise a sockpuppet like you could use it to improve your socking methods. I've apologized to the people who are deserving of one. Cheers, -- Pixelface ( talk) 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

please consider yourself trouted again, jeers Jack Merridew 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you Dominic. I appreciate it. -- Pixelface ( talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Jack, I understand your position, but I'm not about to release private correspondence when Pixelface would clearly not want it to be. Now, whether I run a check based on a private request or not is a separate matter, but since the request was merely to double-check a check already done by John, I didn't think it was worth a fuss. Dominic· t 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Dominic, I was not intending to imply that you should reveal whatever was emailed to you; rather I feel that the allegation, which includes an assertion of 'evidence', should be made publicly and that the one so asserting should put up or shut up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a thread at WP:ANI regarding Pixelface's behaviour in this matter. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have opened an Unban request on behalf of Jvolkblum and others, which also includes a ban request on Orlady, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. User:MBisanz expressed interest in hearing your views. doncram ( talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. As far as I can tell, all iPhones in at least the Twin Cities have been not only blocked, but also prevented from writing on their own talk pages by one of your blocks. It came up at a party I was at last night, when it came up I was an Admin on Wikipedia someone complained that they couldn't make a change on their iPhone; I tried my iPhone (I don't edit from it) and it was blocked too. I think blocking the entire spectrum of 32.148.0.0/16 for 2 months, without permitting unblock requests, is too much collateral damage and bad PR. Please consider loosing it. -- Bobak ( talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am very aware of the consequences of this block. It was only done as a result of a lot of very nasty and persistent vandalism. However, note that it is an "anon. only" block, so that anyone should be able to log in to edit. As well, users should be able to edit their talk pages, for unblock requests. I did not intend to block talk page edits, and as far as I can tell from the log, they aren't blocked: [3]. Could you try checking that again? Dominic· t 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply: you appear to be right --since I've never been blocked I got confused by the instructions on the page (especially since IPs don't have the "my talk" tab at the top). It's a bit messy because the IP for the iPhone keeps changing in that range --as you undoubtedly took into account. -- Bobak ( talk) 20:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I wanted to chime in on this. I'm trying to figure out what happened with this block, but I can't find any history of what the problems were with the range, or any trail of less-severe blocks. Starting with a two-month block -- if that's actually the case -- seems a bit much, especially when you consider that you are blocking literally tens of thousands of computers across the country. Like I said, I don't know what the history is on this, but if you could offer some, the transparency would probably go a long way.

Thanks. — Bdb484 ( talk) 18:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you comment on this user's unblock request? He's being hit by an open proxy rangeblock for XO communications, and says there's no proxy running at his IP address. Mango juice ^talk 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Re User talk:65.5.128.20, I'd suggest not deleting the page of a repeat vandal ip# while they are blocked; I don't think that qualifies as "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". Thanks. -- Infrogmation ( talk) 05:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, I see what you were doing now; I didn't before, as there was no indication of the actual reason for deletion in your deletion summary. I replied to your message at User talk:Infrogmation. Sorry for conflict. Do what you wish, though I suggest being sure that the ip's history of vandalism remains clear to vandalism fighters and the reason for deletion is clear to other admins. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. On 9 March you blocked User:194.176.105.39 for extended abuse of editing privileges. On 30 March they spent a short time abusing the unblock and helpme templates, so I reblocked without talk page rights. I'll undo this shortly when they've got bored and gone away - this is just to let you know as it varies your previous block. Hope that's OK, if not feel free to reverse it at any time. Euryalus ( talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI there is an unblock request for an account related to the above IP - User:Yyem, and a minor discussion involving the block. Euryalus ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

This is school IP that is shared by lots of users, which is why I put that custom block message. Please feel free to assume good faith liberally in the absence of evidence that this user is a vandal and give out IP block exemptions. If you do give IPBE, try to note the block at fault, so we can keep track of it (since user rights don't have expiries like blocks). Dominic· t 01:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Why was List of English words from Latin verb forms transwikied with no discussion and then speedy-deleted? Wikipedia has a very large number of lists of English words by etymology ( French, Portuguese, Yiddish, Dutch, Tamil, Hebrew, Turkic, Korean, and many others). For this reason it seems as if List of English words from Latin verb forms would be more at home in Wikipedia than in Wiktionary. AJD ( talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The proliferation of lists of words which have no encyclopedic significance besides their etymological relation is not an argument for keeping the one that I did delete. The idea seems to be that while we would of course reject an article on a single word that consisted of just its etymology, if we make a list of them, then it's encyclopedic. And one for derivations from Latin verbs is even more esoteric. These lists are of course at home at Wiktionary, where such lists (as appendices) already exist. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. The ideal solution is this: a well sourced article on the general linguistic phenomenon (assuming it is significant) of English words derived from Latin verbs, and a link to the Wiktionary appendix listing them all. The list doesn't make much sense here; you can't click on the words to get information about them, since we only have encyclopedia articles. Dominic· t 09:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I mean, that's a reasonable position. But what I object to is that you did the move and deletion unilaterally, with no warning or announcement and no allowance for discussion. The fact that so many other etymological word lists exist in Wikipedia is at least evidence that there isn't broad consensus that such lists are unencyclopedic; and I think it's the editor's responsibility to establish consensus before making a drastic move like transwikiing and speedy deletion. AJD ( talk) 16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, it was a simple case of fitting the cited criterion for speedy deletion. Do you actually have an objection to the deletion, or just the process. I am open to discussing the merits of the article. Dominic· t 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So, I do object to the deletion, but, as described in WP:OWN, it's hard for me to be objective about it because I mostly wrote it. So I'm not sure if the arguments I'd make against the deletion are valid or not—if I'm the only one defending it, you're probably right. (Perhaps we should seek a third opinion, to get around my WP:OWN issues in this particular case?) My argument, though, is basically the following: the existence of lots of other etymological word lists in Wikipedia is evidence that the broad Wikipedia consensus is in favor of the inclusion of such articles. And the one in question, List of English words from Latin verb forms, is arguably even more appropriate than most, in that it at least includes references to a scholarly source on the subject of English words from Latin verb forms, rather than just being assembled out of collected dictionary entries. On the other hand, if you're right that List of English words from Latin verb forms is unencyclopedic and ought to be deleted, the same is true for all of the other ones I listed above and more besides. AJD ( talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Your notion of neutral is very strange; I think most people who consult wikipedia would like to know what the real situation is, as to the size of a country for example, not what some other people would like it to be. The truth is that Mayotte is part of France, not Comoros, and the people who actually live there have just voted overwhelmingly to become even more so. You refer to UN resolutions: the only ones I know of are PROPOSED resolutions which were vetoed by France and are thus null and void. Arab and African organizationa you mention have also expressed vain desires about about how they would like things to be in Palestine, for example; this doesn't change the real situation in the world people actually live in. Wran ( talk) 09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You are confusing the issue. There was no vote to become "more French;" that is your interpretation. The vote changed the administration of a French-administered overseas collectivity to a French-administered overseas department. We don't say that any other overseas collectivity which is not in dispute, like Saint Barthélemy, is less French (in the political sense) than other parts of France. Similarly, this vote has no bearing on whether or not the island is considered French. It is just administered differently.

However, if you would like to discuss the issue of the island's political status absent the red herring of the recent vote, that's fine. Unfortunately, the "truth" is not that Mayotte is part of France, but rather that France claims and administers Mayotte as a part of France. Nor is "the truth" what we are after, neutrality is a different concept. Now, your evidence here is not very persuasive. Your first point, about the UN resolutions, is simply wrong: there have been around four separate UN resolutions passed in the last 35 years each affirming the original resolution on the matter which stated that the "occupation by France of the Comorian island of Mayotte constitutes a flagrant encroachment on the national unity of the Comorian State." This is all discussed in the article itself, and referenced in footnotes 4 and 5. The "real situation" that people live in is that the French administer an island that is internationally recognized to be the sovereign territory of another country. Your invocation of Palestine is especially pertinent, since, as you'll see at Israel, Wikipedia does not take Israel's law as our guide for defining political status, but follows international convention by not including them in the map, population, area statistics, and referring to them as "adjacent" and "occupied" territories. Similarly, see Morocco, where the internationally unrecognized occupation of Western Sahara is not part of our definition of the country despite Morocco's de facto administration, and Cyprus, where the internationally recognized borders of the country include Northern Cyprus, despite the fact that it has no de facto control. Of course, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't explain the status of Mayotte in the article, but it already does that painstakingly. Dominic· t 10:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

There is nothing "confusing" about calling a vote to become an integral part of the French nation, as opposed to being a mere territory or "overseas collectivity", "more French". When Alaska became a state it become more American;if Puerto Rico voted to become a state it would too. We, and the people who live there, do consider territories like Saint Barthélemy less French than actual departments of the nation: the people do not have the same status, rights, and obligations as citizens of the nation proper.

My point about UN resolutions is NOT "simply wrong"; if you read what I actually said you'll see that I only referred to my personal knowledge (at the moment of writing). What you say about UN resolutions is indeed true, as far as it goes; what you fail to mention is that these are only General Assembly resolutions, whereas what I had in mind was Security Council Resolutions, which are the only ones that have any effect. The General Assembly, like the Arab and African associations you mention, is a highly politicized body; all of these groups have made all sorts of partisan resolutions over the years, but their effect is merely propogandistic.

In the neutrality section you refer to there is section titled "Let the facts speak for themselves". The simple fact is that Mayotte is French. ANOTHER fact is that some international organizations don't like this fact and have voted resolutions opposing it, opposing a FACT. Of course they are free to resolve on anything they want, but it won't change the fact. You might want to reflect on the meaning of the word "resolution": to resolve to do something is to have a determination to do it, BUT it is not necessarily to accomplish it; thus the UN General Assembly would like for Mayotte to be part of Comoros but it's not going to happen. And furthermore, nations that voted for these resolutions knew it wouldn't have any effect when they voted; in fact many nations vote cynically in such circumstances, thus allowing them to have things both ways: they can say to the Comorans "hey look, we supported you" but they won't really offend the French because the vote is essentially meaningless. You seem to be a pretty smart guy, so wake up and join the world of realpolitik! Wran ( talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It is painfully clear that this is your personal opinion, and not, as you say, "the simple fact." What sources do you have for your strange claims that an overseas collectivity is less a part of France than an overseas department? It's interesting, but not exactly relevant, that you feel that UN General Assembly resolutions can be ignored, however this is not how any reliable sources on the matter view them. I don't understand your partisanship here; what we are describing is not what we ourselves think is true, but how the situation is understood by reliable sources. Regarding Mayotte rejoining Comoros, I of course I agree that "it's not going to happen," and, indeed, you will see in the article: "As a practical matter, however, these resolutions have little effect and there is no foreseeable likelihood that Mayotte will become de facto part of Comoros without its people's consent." What is at issue here is not the de facto situation in Mayotte (which you describe well and which is not in dispute), but how to describe the de jure status of the island. No respected international bodies nor any major national governments besides France recognize Mayotte as part of France's de jure borders. Dominic· t 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Per your comment in irc: what's "hideuser", and what affect does it have on name changes? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

HideUser is a function given to oversighters with the new RevisionDelete system, which allows them to remove the username in a single click while blocking an account. The username will be replaced by "(username removed)" in all logs and contributions, and will disappear from Special:Listusers. It is governed by the oversight policy. Dominic· t 03:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks much. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If the account has any user pages (such as a talk page due to messages or user warnings being sent to the user), what happens to the user pages? Are the user pages deleted or is the page title replaced with "(Username removed)"?

No, user pages are not deleted automatically. If they exist, they should be deleted first (and then the deletion logs will be one of the things that the name gets removed from). Dominic· t 23:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll keep what you said about UAA reporting in mind, but could you specify how I'm supposed to distinguish between those usernames that are supposed to be reported at WP:UAA and those that are supposed to be reported at WP:RFO? Anti venin 09:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Just try to remember that there are actual people behind the Wikipedians being referenced here, so anything that seems like it could cause problems for people in the real world should be treated sensitively. This means libel and personal information. "X is a rapist," "X is a pedophile," these are common types of vandal usernames that are preoblematic enough to need to be treated with oversight, and should not be spread with UAA reports. Similarly outing like "X's name is Y," "X lives in Canton, Michigan," "X goes to school at Y," and so on should be directed to oversight. And of course, err on the side of caution. Thanks. Dominic· t 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah yes, I see what you mean. I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks. Anti venin 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I apologize for drawing your attention to this edit (since reverted and editor blocked), but you might want to know about it in case you want to alert the police, as I probably would in such a situation.  Sandstein  08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

He says he's very sorry for vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw that you blocked this user for "trolling", but looking at Special:Contributions/CaptchaCompliance, I only see one edit, which was certainly not trolling, and the user has no deleted contributions. Where did this trolling take place? Yours, -- Aervanath ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It was a sockpuppet. If you check my block log around that time, you'll see a bunch of accounts blocked for the same (overly-cryptic, sorry about that) reason. Some have a bit more obvious trolling edits. Let me know if you still have any questions. Dominic· t 03:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I did not realize he was a sockpuppet. In the future, I would recommend that you use "sockpuppet of X" in the block summary for the socks, instead of the original reason for blocking the original puppeteer. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. No harm, no foul.-- Aervanath ( talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I agree. It didn't strike me at the time, blocking them all at once. Thanks. Dominic· t 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I would ask you to be careful and judicious about deleting transwikied titles. In my experience, nine out of ten stay around as disambiguation pages or redirects, and the edit history is useful for the purposes of building such. Since "deletion" on Wikipedia simply means "hiding edit history from non-admins", I see little merit in deleting transwikied articles, just try to turn them into an appropriate redirect or disambig page.

In the specific case of Jutsu, I must also ask you, where is the transwikied article? I know that the transwiki template claimed that "its dictionary counterpart can be found at either Wiktionary:Transwiki:Jutsu or Wiktionary:Jutsu." But simply clicking on these two links is enough to establish that this is not, in fact, the case. It would appear that you deleted an article that had not in fact been transwikied. I would ask you to either undo your deletion (to preserve the edit history), or alternatively make sure that you do transwiki the material you deleted. Thank you. -- dab (��) 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh dear. I see that you are deleting many many articles for "transwikification". Have you not made sure for each one that they really were transwikied? If you haven't, you could be doing rather a lot of damage here. Please make sure that each article you delete on the basis of "has been transwikied" has really been transwikied. Otherwise undelete them, or transwiki them yourself! -- dab (��) 13:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

There wasn't any suggestion in the article that the word had been borrowed by the English language. In which case, it wouldn't make sense to look for the article at "jutsu," but at the correct script, wikt:術. It's true that the suggestions generated by the template didn't make sense in this case. My feeling on redirects and disambiguations is that if there is an actual need for something to point somewhere else, it will get created before long. Dominic· t 20:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

indeed it will. By editors forced to do the same work you had deleted earlier on. I will ask you again to undelete the edit histories you have erroneously deleted, claiming they had been transwikied. You have deleted 55 revisions at jutsu alone. This is work people have invested in documenting the term. It may be arguable that this work would be more at home at wiktionary, which is why we have the transwiki process. The A5 criterion will allow you to delete the edit history at en-wiki only after the content has been moved to wiktionary, nb correctly preserving the history to satisfy GFDL. If you want to delete content for other reasons than A5, do not invoke A5.

You are an admin, and I should not need to explain this to you. You invoked a CSD (A5), which did not apply. I assume it was an honest mistake. Now I have drawn your attention to the mistake you made, you would be expected to clean up after yourself, and not trust that "it will be cleaned up before long" (viz., by others). -- dab (��) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but your patronizing language is not a great way to start a conversation. It's true that wikt:術 is not a transwikied article, but existed before. For all your talk about having to explain things to me, you could have just said that from the beginning, if that's what you meant. Having said that, you clearly already turned jutsu into a disambiguation page, so I don't know what you expect me to do. Dominic· t 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated List of United Nations peacekeeping missions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

See: User talk:時勢造英雄. Thanks! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't have much to add besides what is apparent. The service is indeed an anonymizing proxy, and shouldn't really be unblocked. There is no reason to think this account is connected to any abuse on the IP. If they need to use it to edit (perhaps due to editing from China) IPBE should be considered. Dominic· t 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You have hot mail (not hotmail) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The editors earlier discussed and essentially unanminously agreed that this link should be in place. The presence of (appropriate) jokes in physics articles and text books is an entirely appropriate and traditional thing, and this particular comic is written by a physics expert. If it wasn't for the fact that we couldn't get a license for it (it's licensed non commercial, but the wikipedia is commercial), this would be in the article. It is entirely appropriate to link to material that we cannot include in the wikipedia for licensing reasons.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I am not a vandal, and don't really appreciate being reverted as one. As well, please not that Wikipedia is not a commercial project. Can you honestly say that a link misleadingly-named "XKCD demonstrates the life and death importance of centrifugal force" to a comic adds anything of value to an article on physics? I doesn't demonstrate any such thing; it's a joke, and a good one in fact, but not relevant to the topic at hand. Is this comic in any way historically significant enough for inclusion on a general physics article, or is it just something we put there because we like? The idea that we would include the image in the article if we could sounds ridiculous to me. The inclusion, and especially the link's title, is embarrassingly unprofessional for an encyclopedia article. Dominic· t 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If it was PD or had a compatible license, I'd certainly have put it in the article myself. It's a great example of how the confusion between points of view on centrifugal force has made its way even into popular culture, and it will get people thinking about the problem at hand. I agree that the tongue-in-cheek EL label should be made more straightforward though. Dicklyon ( talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. It's a perfect external link, consistent with WP:EL; thanks, Wolfkeeper, for adding it. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems CU led you to clean out a sock drawer , perhaps related to Mrpotatohead 2 ( talk · contribs). As such, could you comment on or at User talk:Mrpotatohead 2#Unblock requests? He's prepared a fairly promising response to a {{ 2nd chance}} offer (and is continuing to improve it as I write this). As you may know, I'm always one for giving people a second chance should they give an indication they wish to make an about-face and contribute to the encyclopedia. The user described at User:Xeno/RFAQ, for example, turned around and made many positive contributions. – xeno ^talk 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To be clear, Mrpotatohead 2 is definitely LeHappy, but my interpretation would be that Advanceforward and all the other dozen or so socks I blocked were a different entity, and a much more long-term problem. At the time, I was just blocking socks of one or more users that were already indefinitely blocked, and didn't see the need to differentiate. Regarding the merit of the unblock request, I am always mystified by the amount of unblock requests I am asked to comment on just because I did CheckUser. What happened is that there was an ongoing sockpuppetry problem, and someone asked me to use the tool to find outstanding accounts. I don't have any greater authority or judgment here than you. In fact, I prefer to segregate the roles of commenting admin and CheckUser, so that my opinions an decisions as the former never appear to influence my judgments as the latter. (Which was all a polite way of trying to evade your request for comment. ;-) ) Dominic· t 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I wanted to make sure I had the socks sorted correctly. This helps a lot, and makes me more comfortable in giving Mr. P another shot. Thanks, – xeno ^talk 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for processing this report [4]. Next time I will ask an advice from a clerk. This report was indeed approved by a clerk. Please note that I did not mention Russavia anywhere in this report, and I only replied about IPs coming from the same area. Perhaps I should not. Sorry for that. Biophys ( talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

From my perspective, it looks like the three of you were simply carrying on an outside conflict within the pages of SPI. There is not typically a need for any discussion at all, except for the original inquiry and any pertinent comments from the parties mentioned. It's not just that it takes longer to look at a page with a lot of debate, but also, everyone will tend to avoid wading into messes like that, so it's in your own best interest not to let it happen. Dominic· t 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. I filed several SPI reports [5], [6], [7], but I have never been reported to ANI for doing this, as had happened right now. I thought the report was justified and provided some evidence, but everyone can be wrong. BTW, in the first link I gave you (Vlad fedorov), that was an evasion of ArbCom ban. I did not press the issue, so only secondary account was blocked... Biophys ( talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You blocked Mcmlxxxvi1986 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Shuppiluliuma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could you, by email if appropriate, explain the basis of your determination that Mcmlxxxvi1986 was a sock. This relates to an inquiry on unblock-en-l by a user who is an obvious sock of Mcmlxxxvi1986. Fred Talk 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mcmlxxxvi1986 has had just one IP in his month of editing, and it was an exact mach with the IP of Bambam1986 (another Shuppiluliuma sock), with identical (rare) user agent strings. As well, Mcmlxxxvi1986 edited the same set of articles, like Economy of Turkey, as Shuppiluliuma. Dominic· t 06:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive and User talk:Nixeagle#Onlyoneanswer Who was the puppet master of user:Onlyoneanswer -- PBS ( talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Will you please delete the entire revision history of user:yofiued, except for 1 June 2009?

Reasons: removal of non-public personal information, the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Yofiued&action=history

Thank you YoFIUEd ( talk) 04:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Per your comment at ANI, I've updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. I've also added a request there for others on the good 'ol Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which you might possibly be able to action, though arguably I'm fishing William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response there William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. By the way, I think you may have forgotten to block Shashamula. Dominic· t 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have sent you an email. Kobolola ( talk) 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a heads-up, I changed your block on 134.50.0.0/16. [8] Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi!

You recently found a couple of User:Brexx sockpuppets in the above SPI case. I didn't want to add anything to the above case because it's now closed but still hasn't been archived so I prefer not to mess with it for now. I wanted to ask you if you'd be willing to check Forgivenesss ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a possible sock of Brexx. Forgivenesss started editing shortly after the two confirmed socks were confirmed and blocked and is editing all of the same articles.

Let me know if you'd prefer that I list it over at SPI.

Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! The SPI case has been archived so I re-opened the case with the above listed suspect's account.

Thanks! Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for sticking around at SPI even though the bot is down. It's more work, with suddenly less clerks and CUs, so thanks! Nathan T 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Per your checkuser investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026, I see that you also mentioned likely socks of User:TDC. I have transcluded some of your results to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDC in an attempt to consolidate information about that editor. Could I impose upon you to verify the status of the sockpuppets listed there? I figure either you may have run across some of them in your investigations, or perhaps you'll find new information there that you could use. Regards, Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

	In the area? You're invited to
	Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup
	Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm
	Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map)

-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

	In the area? You're invited to
	Phoenix Wikimedia Meetup
	Time/Date: Sunday, June 28, 3:00pm
	Place: CUPZ Coffee; 777 College Ave, Suite 101, Tempe ( map)

-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 06:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 ( talk) 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been contacted by User:Ace Baker with respect to the above-captioned article; the link will take you to an AfD discussion that you closed in 2005. Please see my talk page ( here) for the details; I deleted a recent re-posting of this article after it had been tagged as having failed a previous AfD. Essentially, this editor has offered me some evidence that the article should be re-mounted; because of a comment in the earlier AfD that "Some unhappy ETS patients have an axe to grind about the side-effects of their surgery, so they are appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause, both in this and in the ETS entry" I wanted to proceed very carefully. My understanding of the relevant policies is that you should be consulted before anything else happens, and that if you were to agree that the article should be re-examined, the next step is deletion review. My experience in this area is extremely limited -- for instance, I've never closed an AfD -- and so I am hoping that your greater experience will guide this process from here. May I hear from you on this topic, please? Thanks in advance for your trouble. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Two very pertinent facts exist today that were not present during the 2005 deletion of Corposcindosis:

1. There now exists an online treatise on the subject, a treatise which contains approximately 200 references to mainstream published medical literature. [9]

2. A citation of the word Coproscindosis, along with its definition, has been published in a mainstream medical journal. [10]

Thank you in advance for restoring this important article. The fact that there are depressed/angry people suffering this condition is no reason at all to delete a wikipedia article. There are many people angry about Bernard Madoff for example.

Ace Baker ( talk) 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The two things that you have presented are a self-published essay on someone's personal website (presumably you are the author) and a single passing, trivial mention in a journal article. That's nothing to write an article about, so the original grounds for deletion, that this is original research still seem to apply. Of course, anyone is welcome make a request at the deletion review, but I wouldn't recommend it. You aren't likely to get far. Dominic· t 02:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response; upon reflection, I agree and will take no action with respect to re-mounting the article. I've directed the user to deletion review on his talk page. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I just don't know. :) Someone else actually had to tell me about it as I hadn't seen it. Lately I've been AVERAGING 400 edits a day. So. Somehow 2 bad ones make me a vandal. Good grief. :) -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

After creating Ministry of Education of Chile, I noticed User:Dominic/Workshop/Archivo Nacional de Chile which is a far better article than the one we have in mainspace now. I see you have two more that should be pushed out as well. *nudge* John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 13:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

207.215.246.46 69.234.129.52 76.222.232.146 According to Whois these set of IPs match. There has been recent IP socking as recent as late July. [11] [12] This justifies a CU. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Dominic, I only updated the pop. estimates with UN 2009 datas; sorry but I dont'know further details. -- Conte di Cavour ( talk) 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it was a pity to see this today. However, I noticed that in addition to removing your oversighter and checkuser flags, the steward also desysopped you. Just wanted to send you a heads up in case you want to make use of the tools in the future. NW ( Talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Aw.... I'm going to miss you and using you (:)). It's such a crime you know? ;) Good luck with your endeavours, and thanks for all the help you've done. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not going anywhere, no need for teary goodbyes. ;-) Dominic· t 08:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed in error your sysop bit flag when fulfilling RfP meta request. I apologize for this. I've checked and a local en.wiki bureaucrat has already fixed my error and your sysop flag has been set. Thank you for your understanding.

-- M/ ( talk) 09:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't worry about it. Thanks for your help. :-) Dominic· t 08:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I viewed your contributions page when I stumbled across two or three other crime-related articles that you nominated for Afd. Given our differences of opinion, I was indeed looking for other articles that I thought should be kept but I did not make any recommendations simply to be contrary to you. I think I recommended weak keep on three or four of them (acknowledging that there was not a strong argument to keep them around), and I avoided commenting "delete" in three or four others that I thought would go away via snowball. You can also check Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime to see that I've commented in quite a few crime-related articles that you did not nominate. I apologize if you feel I've been wikistalking. Best wishes, Location ( talk) 06:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to suggest that you were just being disagreeing with me to be contrarian, but it did seem like you were just participating because you disagreed with me. I don't want to sound like I am trying to discourage participation from people who disagree with me, and I am glad you are understanding about why it made me feel uncomfortable even though I believe you that you didn't mean it that way. Dominic· t 10:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Which Wiktionary logo should we use at the beginning of the article? OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 14:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, I got a chuckle out of the placeholder logo and caption, so maybe it's a good fit. If you want the logo at the beginning, we could put both, or make an image that splices them half-and-half, but they are already pictured in my response to the logo question. It's your call, but I don't mind how it looks currently. Dominic· t 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Blink blink. (rubs eyes)

Nice to see you here again. You popped up on my watchlist, and I was compelled to come and say hello. You've been missed, F.R.! Best regards, as always, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been missed? I should say the same to you. ;-) Nice to hear from you, though. I hope you are doing well, in both wiki and real-world endeavors. :-) Dominic· t 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You offered on the very bottom of this page to help if more ScienceGolfFanatic socks ever returned. I've been emailing him off and on since July and I had come to suspect that he'd be back as soon as school started since he'd be able to evade his rangeblock. I am pretty sure that he is back now, but I don't really think I should add to the SPI case because the two accounts I suspect to be his so far are already blocked. What I'm after is trying to get my suspicions confirmed so that some sort of rangeblock can be placed; otherwise he could just keep coming back (some schools have a different IP address for each computer in the school). The two accounts which I've found are Joejoejoejoejoejoejoejoejoe and Tmffqfs Tpdl. If necessary I can explain what makes me suspicious of these two particular accounts, since I realize it would not be obvious to most other editors, and because "Soap thinks you're ScienceGolfFan" isn't really going to convince a checkuser. (I am 100 percent sure, though; not just 99% sure.) -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 02:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

J.delanoy was able to help and he confirmed that those two accounts are in fact SGF, and that SGF has been editing from school. Hopefully all the IP's should be softblocked now. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 01:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I had also asked Hersfold to look into it, and 64.231.200.0/22 has been blocked. I just forgot to say something here. Unfortunately, I am not a CheckUser any longer, so you'll have to try to follow up with one of those two in the future. Dominic· t 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Nice job getting rid of a bunch of articles on non-notable murderers. It's surprising how articles on non-notable murderers can stay around for so long. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I was pretty disturbed how much it seems that people who have received little actually significant media and academic coverage get articles written about them if they happen to be murderers or similar criminals. Unfortunately, it seems there is no end to these type of articles. :-) Dominic· t 07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed that you have recently deleted an article about Steen Christensen. I don't know what kind of article it was, but anyways, what Christensen did in the year 1997, killing two cops, happens to be one of the most well-known murder cases of the last couple of decades in Finland. Some web links (in Finnish or Swedish): [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]. So, if also the article about him was deleted because of an assumption that he is non-notable, that assumption is clearly wrong. ,,n ( talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Dominic, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to David Brame has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(BLP is irrelevant as a reason. He's dead, and so is his wife.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, i noticed you a perfomed checkuser on IP 210.49.251.226 in the past, showing him to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked user:AKR619. He has returned to List of science fiction themes to revert to a non-consensus version, and also to WWE Hall of Fame, but with a new IP: 220.237.74.225. He is pretending to not be user:AKR619 (the sockmaster), but the editing pattern is obvious. His edits to these article already earned him more than one indefinate block in the past, and since the indef, his IP was warned and blocked a few times, so seems incorrigible.

I think it is so obivous that a checkuser is not needed, but i have never requested one before, so don't know the procedure. Do you think a new checkuser is needed? Could you do one if needed, or do i have to fill out a form somewhere? I left a msg with the blocking admins too ( User:Mark and User:Wizardman). Thanks! Yob Mod 11:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I just noticed comments above about checkuser status. Sorry to hear that. I go searching for the checkuser request page then. Yob Mod 11:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dominic. 72.29.65.254 ( talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock, part of your block of 72.29.64.0/19. The IP looks good for a softblock to me; I don't know if you want to comment on the range.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

That's quite an old block, and the indefinite expiry may have been a misclick or overzealousness on my part. Reducing the expiration date and converting it to a soft-block sound like a good idea to me. We can deal with any future abuse as it crops up. Dominic· t 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You've blocked 82.95.182.23 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a proxy. I find open port 5060 which is usually used for sip, whatever that is, Session Initiation Protocol. Could this actually be exploited? Fred Talk 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not sure about that result. I am currently traveling and don't have much time to check it out. But I will note that that is a Dutch ISP that looks like a hosting company. It's is most likely that the blocked user was only blocked while trying to log in from a hotspot or some similar location, and asking them to try from their regular internet connection will solve the problem on their end. Dominic· t 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem is still there after 10 days, I'm going to unblock and see if there is any actual exploitation. Fred Talk 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Your interview will be published next week. I just want to double check with you on whether it's ready or not. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you read the previous message because I just realized I made 2 topic names that are identical. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Gratz on WP:AUSC. In the Signpost article, what does "It is also the largest sister project in terms of number of projects" mean? (Watching) - Dank ( push to talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I was trying to say that it has the most individual projects by language (en. wikt, fr.wikt, ja.wikt, etc.). I know that is a confusing wording. If you can think of a better way of saying it, please do. Dominic· t 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A sandwich didn't seem appropriate. We needed something a little more celebratory! Congratulations on your appointment to the AUSC. I'm happy to say, in public, that you had my support. Good luck, and keep up the good work DMC! As always, you have my very best regards. Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support (and cake). :-) Dominic· t 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Obviously, I opposed you, because I believe you are Wikileaker on Wikipedia Review, and the same individual who leaked several emails from the Arbcom mailing list and left several anonymous hurtful comments on my blog. I make this accusation based on various factors that were determined by me and some other editors, including at least two arbitrators. Additionally, you are barely here at all, hardly interested in the encyclopedia, and you have already proven yourself to be abusive in other roles (such as IRC op). I couldn't think of anyone less suitable for the role, if I am honest. Majorly talk 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Majorly, you have repeatedly made insinuations with no particular substance to be refuted; though I can say that I have never visited or heard of your blog. I am tired of your accusations, honestly. It is clear to me that people do not seem to agree with you or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As to your substantive complaints about activity and interest, you should have raised them during the election period. I would have told you that while it is true that I have been doing a lot of traveling and moving recently and I fully admit my low level of recent activity, I am here to stay and soonto be back to normal schedules, so I expect to be able to give AuSc all the time it needs. Dominic· t 18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Majorly, for your information, I followed up with the two arbs that you named yesterday. My email correspondence with them makes it clear that there is not evidence from an investigation that shows that Dominic is Wikileaker. As I told you in IRC, you needed to let the matter drop, or file a formal complaint with AUSC or the Foundation instead of making these allegations without any supportive evidence. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, there is evidence alright. I tried to work out who Wikileaker was for a long time, and it involved several editors in different ways. I spent a lot of time looking over posts, times and edits trying to establish who to rule out, who to rule in. I looked at background, activity and conflicts of different editors just to see if they held any grudge against me, or Lar or JoshuaZ. And why should I bother emailing the foundation, just to get no response because they disagree? And I am certainly not filing any complaint with something as silly as AUSC. I am certain of what I say, and don't say this sort of thing lightly. I could have raised it some time back of course, but I thought Dominic had stopped playing games so did let the matter drop. Clearly I was incorrect in that assumption. Majorly talk 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not nor have I ever leaked or played "games." I don't hold grudges against any of the people you mention, including you. In fact, despite any disagreements we may have had, I quite like Lar, who I have known and worked with for a while. Again, I think it is unreasonable to make an accusation and insist that you are sure of it and that you have evidence, but refuse to actually file a complaint to settle the matter. As a fellow CheckUser, I know you understand the gravity of the accusation. If you are actually serious about it, you should act in the way that a serious complainant would; and that does not involve vague accusations on talk pages which seem to have no purpose other than to damage someone's reputation. Dominic· t 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Dominic, I have granted you CU and OS flag. You can subscribe to checkuser-l and contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser and #wikimedia-oversights. Congratulations and regards, LeinaD (t) 11:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, you could have some more information about the tool at n:WN:WiktLookup#Wiktionary_lookup_gadget_(Hover_box_variety), n:MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js But also (sorry these two following links are external):

• (in English) Bawolff's blog
• (in French) Otourly's blog

Regards, Otourly ( talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I posted a comment/question on the wikipedia story. I was hoping someone like you would respond at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-16/Sister projects.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

After the rewrite, it does look better, but that's still a big difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. If Wiktionary people are aware of such pitfalls, there needs to be a better venue than just talk pages. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Who's the pupetteer behind Commabo ( talk · contribs) ? Just curious. Abecedare ( talk) 05:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I purposefully did not name them. If you would like, I can fill you in by email. Dominic· t 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Not really important; just idle curiosity since I noticed that you blocked ~50000 IPs. I understand the WP:DENY reasoning. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dominic, I emailed you earlier today about User:Mr. Hicks The III, which seems likely to be a return of User:I am Dr. Drakken whom you previously blocked. Same interests, tone, pattern of jumping into contentious AfD's, reporting editors for enforcement, jumping into edit wars. As I said, this concerns me especially because sanctioned editors who have made these AE reports under their main accounts have been sharply criticized for doing so. The reason for concern seems clear enough, so please let me know if you need something additional. Thanks, Mackan79 ( talk) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Dominic, any updates on my SPI issue? Still waiting for your second opinion? Hope you have a good day. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Regarding_illicit_oversights_for_an_Arbitrator.. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I admit a response has been slower in coming than I would like. I am still new to the committee, and, to be frank, so far it has been frustrating. We need to come up with a better system than posting unfocused smatterings of comments to a mailing list. I am hoping to work on making it more efficient, but, for the moment, I will stop making promises on when something will be ready. (Which isn't to say I'm not still working on it.) Dominic· t 05:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I notice that you recently identified User:NoCal100 and User:Canadian Monkey as likely part of the same sock farm. If you look at this thread you will see that before these two were equated some of us thought that another account was run by one or the other of them. If your checkuser on them showed up the same ISP/geopraphical area as indicated by the two IP addresses that Nableezy mentions in that thread, then could you please prompt an admin to take appropriate action. Also, if you look at this archived comment to me, you'll see that an editor on the other side of the I/P dispute agree with Nableezy and my supicions about Breein1007 being a sock account related to CM/NoCalton. An SPI was raised about Bree possibly being run by Canadian Monkey alittle while ago but it was closed because of the lack of a recent trail for CM shortly before he reactivated and you did your own Checkuser on him. I asked the clerk who closed that SPI to consider reopening it (see [19]) but they have given me no indication of an opinion on this. GIven that we now now that CM was part of an active puppet farm, I think that a check on Bree is definitely appropriate. Thanks.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

As a principal in the past SPI related to user JuliaHavey, [20] you might want to check the followup SPI report filed today. [21] Thank you. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It might be worth looking here too. -- TraceyR ( talk) 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have asked a followup question at the now quite delayed Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Regarding_disputed_oversights_for_an_Arbitrator. If there isn't an explanation forthcoming within the next 48 hours regarding the mandate of the subcommittee, I will ask that it be folded back up as failed. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

We are planning to meet as a group on IRC before tomorrow night, at which point I hope we can finalize our thoughts. Dominic· t 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The weekend now being unambiguously, globaly, certainly over, I'm going to have to insist that the Audit Subcommittee release a statement in a specified timeframe. If the comittee cannot release a statement within the next 24 hours, I'm going to mark the comittee as historical and sugest a return to the "loud shouting and backchannel influence peddling" method of audit. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have opened a case to attempt to get some clarity on the mandate of the Audit Subcomittee. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Audit_Subcommittee. You are a named party only in your capacity as a member of the Committee. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for releasing the report. It is difficult for any comittee to write a document. I apologize for being such a bother through the process, and merely hope that no one holds it against anyone. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't fault you for your impatience. I am happy it is finished, and will try to make sure things run more smoothly in the future. Dominic· t 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobmack89x/Archive you said "let me know if it continues", it seems to me we have a fresh Bobmack89x puppet in

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

Would it be better if I just opened a new report? Thanks, CliffC ( talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It looks like that was the only account. He was able to use a public school network to evade the disabling of account creation on his main IPs. I have blocked the school IP, which will hopefully prevent him from doing it again. Dominic· t 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm editing away and all of a sudden I was knocked off line and got logged off and discovered that my whatever number had been blocked, just now, by, I think, you. If there is vandalism happening from here I'd like to know. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 00:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Your were never blocked directly, and nor was your specific IP address. What happened was that the range of IP addresses that you use was blocked to stop a prolific sockpuppeteer. This block should not affect you in any way, since it only targets logged-out editing and new account creation. If you ever find yourself blocked again, you simply need to log in. The reason that the block message is so vague is to avoid unnecessarily outing the sockpuppeteer's IP address and location. Dominic· t 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not particularly knowledgeable about how IP addresses work, but my concern, since i was editing in a library at the time I was blocked was that the sockpuppeteer that you were intending to block was operating from the library, and that did not seem possible. I am all in favor of keeping disruptive elements out of wikipedia, I was just surprised and a bit disturbed to get caught up in that net. I'll just assume that you understand what you are doing (including that it blocks "innocent" editors from posting) and thank you for your efforts. Carptrash ( talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay. I am at the library (which is blocked) with a patron who is trying to set up an account and I find that the library is still blocked. This is not ( opinion) a good thing. Can you please unblock me? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

So Demonic: Are you going to help me resolve this issue? Your name keeps appearing as the bloicker. What's Up, Doc? Carptrash ( talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've reviewed the situation here independently and have to say that we cannot lift this (somewhat narrow) rangeblock at this time. What you can do is direct the person to Wikipedia:Request an account - which will enable them to request an account be created for them. They should then be able to log in just fine and bypass the block :) - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Alison. I was about to look into this, and saw you beat me to it. :-) I somehow missed your message on the 6th, Carptrash, so I apologize for that. I wasn't ignoring you, or even trying to be demonic. ;-) Dominic· t 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Is this really as secretive as it needs to be? Okay I was embarrassed again, trying to help a patron at the library I work in to register and again not being able to do it. For what? if someone is doing anti wikipedia stuff from the library I work in I'd like to know. I'm not great at understanding how IP numbers work, but this is not ( opinion) a good thing. I will try the link above (thanks for it) but I doubt that I will get the chance with that particular patron. Carptrash ( talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Carptrash. From one library worker to another ;-), I assure you that the problems you have been having are the last thing we want to happen. If you are helping library patrons register accounts and become editors of Wikipedia, than that is great and should be encouraged. The issue here is likely not your library at all. Rather, your library and a prolific banned user are fellow customers of the same internet service provider and belong to the same range of IP addresses. There is not supposed to be anything secretive about that fact. Note that usually in cases like these, simply using a different internet connection (like home or school instead of the library) will be sufficient to be able to register an account. However, if you plan on ever helping someone to register an account in the future, let me know and I think I can give your account an exemption to the IP block that will allow you to register accounts for others (while you are logged into your account). Dominic· t 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker ( talk) 01:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

There was a suicide threat made and it was deleted. It was brought to ANI for comment. Myself and another user are requesting a checkuser solely to get the IP for geolocation to call the police per WP:SUICIDE. Could you do a checkuser and get me the location and I will take it from there and make the call. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm wondering if the checkuser work was finished on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 before it was marked as complete. There is no indication of the checkip result for the suspected IPsocks. The actions of those IPs were what seem to have induced PilgrimRose to create a sock, so it seems only fair to get an answer whether or not the IPs=Wikid77. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl 20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Findings regarding IP addresses are much more sensitive than normal findings of sockpuppetry, because an IP is personal information. Additionally, normally, we can only talk about accounts being related in terms of probabilities, but that is problematic for IP addresses, because it means we could be giving out someone's IP address on only a likelihood, and not a certainty, that they were doing anything wrong. My policy is usually to avoid giving any positive or negative statement on IP addresses at all, except where it becomes essential to the case. Note that I try to remain silent about IPs in cases like these even when it is a negative finding, so that my silence isn't an implicit connection. This is mostly a subjective determination, but usually that means that when there are multiple accounts and a finding of sockpuppetry, making any comment on the IPs is unnecessary because knowing the IP's status will not affect the finding of sockpuppetry against the main account. In this case, it doesn't seem like the repercussions against the alleged main account would be affected much by saying whether or not the IPs are related. The block against the main account applies to all accounts any IPs by that person, so making the IP known will only be necessary if in the future IP editing is used to evade the block. Dominic· t 01:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't an accidental oversight. No objection. LeadSongDog come howl 20:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Dominic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Sonia Tschorne - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey why do i get a message in a red rectangle about "bad edits" while i'm tagging some users you blocked as sockpuppets of a notorious bad boy? Tempaccount5 ( talk) 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

In the AfD that brought forth the most recent SPI, I noticed this from a relative new redlinked userpage account. Within three days or starting its account and within its first half dozen edits, it starting nominating article for deletion. See [22]. I.e. this account does not feel like a new user and given the kinds of AfDs and the confirmed SPI in the one mentioned above, I think it may be the same guy? Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not Torkmann, but it's definitely something. :-) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Webley455 sockpuppetry. Dominic· t 10:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Interesting. Thank you for the reply and fast work! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Dominic. I thought I should draw your attention to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka#Explanation As Checkuser in this case you may have something useful to add. Irvine22 ( talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Irvine, I have seen the discussions, both there and on ANI. You should know that I sympathize with your situation. I have been in this job long enough to know the stress that a sockpuppetry investigation can cause. It is always a hazard of the decision to perform a check, and an even more unfortunate one when suspicions turn out to be unfounded. I think if we talk about it calmly we can reach an understanding, and I can clearly articulate why I thought the check was warranted. But after all that all those screenfulls of words, could you perhaps post a succinct summary of what you would still like me to answer? Dominic· t 06:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, I find the explanation offered by yourself and Nathan - that the check was necessary because of an apparent confession by one of the users involved to being my sockpuppet - to be reasonable. I would expect such additional grounds would be necessary, given the flawed initial report by Snowded. Elonka has now offered a brief explanation on her talkpage for her own actions in bundling four additional users into the check. I'm content to let the matter rest at this point. Thanks for your time. Irvine22 ( talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

is here [23]. I want to make absolutely sure you've been given a chance to respond to it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've just blocked User:Reg7ha and User:Prop3v56 as Torkman socks per WP:DUCK, and had previously blocked User:Politoman for the same reason. Since you did the CU on the original Torkmann SPI, could you check these as well? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You deleted the image File:Ongal.jpg. The page had an OTRS ticket, the Commons transfer page did not. Please be more careful in checking what you delete. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you noticed, but that deletion is four years old. :-) Your point is well taken, but the amount of time since I have been active in image deletion could be measured in years at this point, so you don't have much to worry from me. Dominic· t 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1980 plebiscite ballot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude ( talk) 07:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

One week ago, you wrote: Please post your thoughts succinctly and without the rhetoric and I will be happy to keep talking about it. [24] I immediately took the time to respond. [25] You then ignored the response. Why? Meanwhile, the language I find so offensive remains in the official AUSC report. Please respond. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I haven't, in fact, intentionally ignored you. I have been mostly too busy in the real world to edit here the last couple of weeks. I do find it a bit tiresome to receive the bulk of your ire just because I am the only one responding, though. I think you can guess what the tone of my response will be—not much different from our previous exchange. However, I will ask for other auditors to weigh in, as hearing from more than one should be more satisfying, in any case. Dominic· t 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This is an interesting allegation (sockpuppetry). Is there a way one can change or delete an existing user name? For identification purposes, I would rather use a different user name (MuJami). As Racepacket pointed out, I made this request previously.

As there does not appear to be a method to edit one's user name I thought it best to create a "new" profile. Unfortunately (yet understandably)someone misconstrued this act as sockpuppetry.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for running a CU on Peter Damian. One of the socks you uncovered, User:I love SUV's, is the selfdeclared (by both named accounts) same as account User:HistorianofScience, who is not blocked and hasn't come up in the CU. Do I need to start a new SPI or cna you run the additional check based on this info? Fram ( talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that was my error. HistorianofScience is a confirmed sockpuppet, and came up in my recent check. I recognized it as soon as I saw you mention it and was surprised I hadn't included it. Just an oversight on my part with all the copying and pasting of usernames going on. It's on the same range as the others, so I already followed that account down its rabbit hole, too. :-) Dominic· t 09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Allright, thanks!

I'm a tiny bit confused... you wrote that you blocked an IP... [26]... but I reported an editor account. Could you confirm? Sorry, just want to be sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I confirmed that the account you reported was a sockpuppet. Therefore, I blocked the IP that he used to create the sockpuppet, in hopes of preventing further occurrences. :-) Dominic· t 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah... I didn't actually block the account itself. I'll do so now! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that it was relisted to check on another IP that popped up. – MuZemike 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

Thanks, – MuZemike 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply