User talk:Kww

Archives at:

DVMt/Neuraxis

After I added the template to the chiropractic page on May 20, 2014 DVMt deleted the very same template on May 21, 2014 I added to the fringe theories. The motivation for deleting the template from the fringe theories was because I added the template to the chiropractic page. This shows DVMt has a battleground mentality. DVMt accused me of adding two templates to the fringe theories but I only added one. There was no specific rationale argument to delete the templates.

User:Adam Cuerden restored the template I originally added and added a {{third-party-inline}} template.

DVMt deleted a template that was added to the page back in December 2011 and deleted the template User:Adam Cuerden restored. This shows DVMt was blindly deleting the {{Unbalanced}} template that was in the article for a number of years. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVMt claims "The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here [1]."[2] The {{Bias source}} template I originally added no longer exists. I created a new and different template. There was no discussion for removing "two templates" at the fringe page. The discussion is about only one template but DVMt removed two templates. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a {{db-copyvio}} in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the website Quackwatch. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_3#User:DVMt.2Fsandbox. Even sandboxes should not have copyright violations. See User:DVMt/sandbox. Now the copyright violation was added to the chiropractic talk page. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, QuackGuru, the material in DVMt's sandbox does not qualify as a copyright violation. It could be made a little clearer as to what parts are quotes and what parts are DVMt's analysis of that material, but the attribution is reasonably clear and the usage of the material is to provide commentary on it.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kshilts previously deleted pseudoscientific [3] and other text from the chiropractic lede[4][5][6] Neuraxis is back using a sock account. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum possibly. Not sure if we should wait for further edits to clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over WP:FAKEARTICLE

See diff. The edit summary suggest he thinks the fake article littered with mass OR and mass MEDRS violations is an improvement over the well developed chiropractic article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Jayaguru-Shishya is making pointy comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you provided, it's still under discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox

Therefore, it would be violating to remove it until the dispute has been discussed. Why are you reporting such a claim?

You just got banned for the so called pointy comments on your talk page. Here is the message from administrator John[7]

Hi there Quackguru. I have blocked your account for one week for disruptive editing. Your edits to electronic cigarette are either riddled with error or too one-sided. When you come back I want you to take a lot more care, consider avoiding areas where you have very strong views, and (especially) remember that editing here is a collaborative process (meaning we have to work together) and a privilege (which can be withdrawn). If you wish to appeal against this block you may do so by posting {{unblock|your reason here}}, but you should review WP:GAB first. Best wishes and good luck. --John (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

.

You even dared to remove it from yout Talk Page, until the very administrator John restored it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=610687333

Do not remove it again, okay? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also he refused to collaborate, a proposal which I made on his Talk Page before his ban even[8]. He just deleted it. He clearly is here not to collaborate. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally reverted a new account that only made one edit to Wikipedia. I added in-text attribution as a compromise. I'm saving this diff. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is deleting sourced text without any consensus and without any good reason. I don't see any discussion on the talk page to delete the text. What should be done about this? QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (Herbxue, Dougmcdonell, Jayaguru-Shishya, 2044.174.12.10, Jytdog, Bumm13). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg"

So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong). Please see the consensus flowchart linked in the edit summary. Why did you revert something approved by so many editors? Have you learnt anything from your most recent ban? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will examine the list to see if any legitimate editors have supported removal of the text, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for John and Tiptoety good to know. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayaguru-Shishya, please show where 7 editors approved of your edit. Please also show where was the discussion on the talk page for consensus to delete the text. You haven't shown you got consensus to delete the text and you still have not given any reason to delete the text. I added in-text attribution as a compromise for the text at TCM. I added in-text attribution which fixed any concerns about the text. In-text attribution was also done at acupuncture as a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is still claiming 7 editors approved of his edit. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy and here is your revert against 7 different edits per previous policy. It seems you keep continuing the same behaviour right after your most recent ban. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya, your list of seven editors is obviously false, as it includes editors that do not exist and editors that have not commented on the issue. Examine your list, correct it and correct the count, or stop using it. The next claim of "seven supporters" that you make without providing an actual list of seven supporters will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pertaining to WP:Consensus Flowchart. Since the revert QuackGuru made over the edit of Bexgro, you can easily see from the Revision history that how many users have kept editing the article remaining User Bexgro's edit. This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave myself and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong,...". So what's the problem here?

Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are attempting to deceive people by conflating "seven people edited the article" with "seven people agreed with the removal of this material". Again, count the people that have actively stated support for the change and replace your claim of seven with the result, Jayaguru-Shishya.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to deceive anyone, that's ridiculous. User QuackGuru has been the one making accusations against me[9]. Again, like the chart over WP:CON demonstrates, the last version remained unchanged and got edited by several other contributors before QuackGuru reverted it. And as I made it pefectly clear in my edit summary: "Revert this if I'm wrong...", or like I already stated here: "So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong)...". If one disagrees, can he/she at least correct me? I am open to correct my statements if I am wrong, naturally. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed you have consensus but it seems you did not have a consensus to delete the text in the first place. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been attempting to correct you, Jayaguru-Shishya, using the time-honoured technique of making someone examine an issue until they see where they have gone wrong. It's one of the ways that I use to distinguish good-faith editors from others. Do you truly not see how, for example, an editor like Bumm13 that focuses on making corrections to transliterations and linking is not expressing an opinion on your change? That 204.174.12.10's opinion on shark-fin soup is not a comment about your change? That McSly's reversion is a negative opinion on the change? That QuackGuru's edits are a negative opinion of your change? In short, the only other editor that made any statement in favour of the change was Herbxue? Hardly the seven to one consensus you are using to justify your edits.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Kww. I start to understand that we have been looking this from totally different perspectives, but I do get your point now. This is what I am concerned about:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. (WP:CON)

I understand now that you are pointing out to different motives behind the edits of each user that I were pertaining to. In my understanding, though, WP:CON only speaks about implicit and invisible process of consensus; the motive of edit does not matter as long as the edit is not disputed. This is what I see to be Bexgro's case.

Well, this is my understanding on WP:CON, but I don't really see why QuackGuru couldn't try discussing the issue first at the article Talk Page? I even stated very clearly in my edit summary: "...Revert this if I'm wrong..."[10], and that already happened by Jim1138[11]. I am not seeking for any trouble and in my opinion, everything is okay at the article already. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of consensus is wrong. Certainly, there is a concept of silent consensus: an edit that lasts for months on an actively edited article can be presumed to have some level of consensus. Not a very strong one if no one has been actively supporting it, but yes, it's there. An edit that has been around for a couple of days while a couple of editors actively removed it cannot be said to have any level of consensus at all. —Kww(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the snarky edit summary

I appreciate your pulling me up for this edit summary. I think I read your comment more harshly than it was intended. Thanks for explaining. --John (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prem Raj Pushpakaran

As you are literate in coding, your assistance would be helpful. Currently, when AfCs are XfDd, like in the link above, the template assumes it is a talk page. It shouldn't, as AfCs are articles in talkspace. Therefore, would you be so kind as to edit Template:User-links and create an if statement so that it recognises AfCs and thus behaves as though it is an article? (It would need to ask if the first 37 characters equal "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/", I know there is an expression for that but I don't know what that is.)Laun chba ller 18:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

The reputation that is most effected when a false accession is made is your own. In saying early in the discussion about DVmt, that "It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals", you made a claim of sock puppetry that you later retracted. This site makes such false accession far too easy; even so, anyone who does so is clearly marked in the community at large by doing so. And one must always be more careful in accusing ones that we disagree with, or find distasteful, wouldn't you agree? Best wishes to you here, but I hope never to see another such serious accusation turn out to be mistaken. (No RSVP necessary, but if so, please reply here. I will mark and watch.) Cheers. Le Prof [failed to sign earlier, so signing now, belatedly] Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comment regarding your stridency

I likely, case by case, will come to the very same conclusions that you do, but I will not, a priori, dis-allow anyone from bringing a citation-based sentence of text into the Wikipedia, perceived pseudoscience or no. Stridency such as yours, while to some extent keeping science focused on the most likely explanations, has also led to huge failures and crises in modern science (e.g., the sidelining of the late Carl Woese for most of his early career; though declining major society awards to the end of his days for the prejudicial slights he experienced early, at least his story ended well, as he was vindicated, and esteemed). Opposite that, other major research laboratories have come-and-gone that were on the wrong tack for years (clinging to failed hypotheses, long past the point where the preponderance of science had said "let go", because all data coming the way of the PI was prejudged based on worker perceptions of what the PI was willing to hear). These historical observations, as much as the one given from the birth of modern physics, are the basis for my comment regarding religiosity among the most fervent of science types. The direction such attitudes point may indeed be different from those of its opponents, and the aims largely correct. But it is still philosophically the same mares nest, and when it falls, it falls hard. One sees it in the history of science, in biology, in chemistry (my field), in drug discovery, etc. etc. Please, approach everything in an evidence-based fashion, and not prejudicially. Even if only one of the myriads of seemingly nonsensical alternative treatments proves true, we would lose (and lose ourselves) if we resort to anything less than empiricism to find the one and dismiss the others. See comment regarding your stridency, at [12]. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014

Can you take a look at Electronic Entertainment Expo 2014 ? This edit summary [13] confuses me, and the edits are piling up. I'm not sure how to review this. Thanks, Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make head nor tails of that one either, Origamite. Do you know whether the edit is accurate? That's the important part, not the ramblings of an anonymous editor.—Kww(talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... but games keep getting added, and I'm not sure whether to approve those (the editors might be at E3) or not. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple rule in my book, Origamite: if they didn't provide a good enough source for you to verify it, they didn't provide a good enough source for you to approve it.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chloë Grace Moretz

Greetings! As a confirmed user, this doesn't affect me, but I'm curious: I don't see the persistent vandalism or edit-warring that used to be a requirement for page protection. Did I miss something? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty blatant BLP violations in the history, of the kind that experience has taught me is a meme. No reason to suffer through it.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Carry on. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You've got a reply on Template talk:Singlechart#Countries for chart identifier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlylambert (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of archive.today

I would like to inform you that a pattern that I have noticed could serve as a strong hint regarding the ownership of archive.today by User:Rotlink. I’m telling you this here instead of mentioning it in a more general location because I’m not sure what the best place to mention it would be.

In the message where he claimed to be the owner of archive.is, Rotlink ended a sentence with the “:(” emoticon not preceded by a period, the next sentence starting with a capital letter: “[…] nor in Tubmlr control panel :( Hopefully, I found this conversation […]”.

A message posted 4 weeks ago on the archive.today blog shows exactly the same pattern: the very same emoticon, not preceded by a period, right at the end of a sentence and preceding a sentence starting with a capital letter: “It is not easy, PhantomJS allows to spoof User-Agent only for the request of the main page, not for the images and AJAX requests :( So you may get something weird instead […]”.

It is very improbable that this is a coincidence. It may seem very ridiculous, which is why I have called it a hint rather than a proof or evidence. Yet, in truth, there is no doubt that they are the same person: the probability that two persons, when one of them has claimed to be the other, have this very same writing pattern, which appears four other times on the blog (but the occurrence I mentioned is the only one where a sentence can be found after the emoticon), is very low. You can search for “:(” on the page of the blog to find the examples I am talking about.

I’m not sure whether this is sufficiently important for a new discussion to be started about it, but I think it should be brought up if any discussion about archive.today arises or is still going on. ― Rastus Vernon (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create an OpenCart article

Hello,

I would like to create an OpenCart article. I have the draft written, although wikipedia would not let me post without an administrators permission.

I would appreciate it if you unlock the article so I can post it for the ever expanding community. The article does not contain advertising and it is pure 100% information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since the last deletion discussion, Elkonabike?—Kww(talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected much more information on the topic based on research on what other E-commerce solutions feature as information. Still I do not understand why you and others are preventing and deleting any article on OpenCart. I saw the article has been deleted 2-3 times before. This is a free e-commerce system, actually the world's 3rd most popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkonabike (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC2

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

The number of awards won by the artist was more than 174 before the addition of Destiny's Child awards were added months ago. Secondly, many of the awards by the individual artist listed includes awards won by Destiny's Child. The number of awards is no where near inflated and both of us are just as capable of providing sources to each award. I will edit the page once again including awards won by Destiny's Child regardless of whether I will be blocked from editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Media check

Kww,

I am looking to take the Demi Lovato and Katy Perry articles to FA at some point within the next month, and was wondering: could you perform media checks for images and such when nominated? Given your frequent work at Demi (and other Disney-related articles), I can see why personal commentary on prose and such probably wouldn't be appropriate during an FAC for her, but would that make you ineligible for media-checking? If you can't do such checks, please refer me to someone who can.

Thank you in advance. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Guetta discography

There is an anonymous IP who keeps removing singles from tables at David Guetta discography without giving any explanation in edit summaries, some of recent removals are these, 1, 2. I tried to warn him/her on the user's talk twice 1, 2, but he/she deletes the warnings and goes back to the article and keeps removing content. The request for semi-protection was declined. Maybe you could take a look.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed it with a filter. Let me know if you see him hop IPs.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will.--Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. I am aware I have invoked WP:IAR in closing this, but as there is not a clear consensus to run a bot to remove all the links (from the BFRA and RfC discussions), I feel the close is appropriate. Please let me know if you feel differently. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake

Hello. Why are you deleting the sections of this article? Well, i understand that there are not links but it dosen't mean that we should delete the section. If you don't know then there's a template which you can put when the article hasn't sources. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

There is a huge amount of unsourced entries on the List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim page. I think you should take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.133.76 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question

I'm not looking for any action, just an opinion. Do you think the highlighting done on this Talk page is a help or a hindrance? It's being presented as lifting the contributions of others above the din of the two conflicting editors. I have my own opinion about what to do next but I'm looking for a little outside insight and you are one of the admins I remember being above reproach. Padillah (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim

There is still a lot of false and unsourced information on this page. An example being the BMI and ASCAAP awards. How did one receive awards for the same songs in the same years, when an artist can only be associated with one organisation at a time? A lot of the sourced awards link to the same Australian google book that doesn't have anything to do with the claimed awards. I will try and find reliable sources for the claims and help in any way you would like me to. Just a warning, I have had previous run ins with this particular editor, from experience he will likely revert your edits. KaneZolanski (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very specific, KaneZolanski. If you can demonstrate specific line items that he inserted with sources that didn't corroborate them, I'll either put him on final warning or block him right now.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One example, in the ASCAAP Pop Awards section. The source provided honours 50 Cent for his contribution to Magic Stick. It does not award, mention or even credit Lil Kim. Citation 9 awards Scott Scorch as song writer of the year. There is no reference to Lil' Kim in the source provided. There are a lot more examples of this and there is a large portion of awards that have no source at all. KaneZolanski (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those come under the class of what I could consider to be good-faith confusion. I've removed them, and hopefully that will be the end of it. I see this in articles all the time, where people try to give singers and actors credit for awards that belong to writers and producers. Do you have any cases where it's clearly a bad-faith edit, KaneZolanski? Please don't feel like I'm dismissing your concerns: I'm not. I just can't take action if there's a good-faith explanation for the problem.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look into this further. An example of the editor inserting lies is the ASCAAP Pop Music Awards. He claims the Lady Marmalade won Song of the Year, when in fact Dido won that year, as backed up by this source. http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2002/song.aspx. Also, the ASCAAP Pop Honourees Award was awarded to Kenny Nolan for his work on Lady Marmalade. I have deleted these off of the page. KaneZolanski (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The amount of false information on this page is outstanding. I'm removing all of the false and inaccurate claims, chances are they are going to be reverted by the editor. It's impossible to give any other reasons besides false in the edit summaries. I've searched the sources provided and done individual research and they still come back false. It's a shame.KaneZolanski (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to give the editor time to insert necessary citations using the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Hopefully he can find sources to back up these claims. KaneZolanski (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a completely made up received award. The sources only state that Christina won for Best International Female. Nothing at all to do with the song. Channel V Thailand Music Video Awards


Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2002	"Lady Marmalade" (with Christina Aguilera, Pink & Mýa)	Popular Duo/Group Video ^[1] ^[2]	Won

Made up award title and award, She co-hosted the event. She didn't receive an award. Children Uniting Nations


Year	Nominee / work	Award	Result
2007	Lil' Kim	Crystal Dove Award: Inspiring Our Children to Dream ^[3]	Won

KaneZolanski (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just a couple of the TENS of blatant false lies and information. For example the lie I'm currently deleting is from The Source Awards. Where it is claimed that Lil Kim won for best female rap collaboration in 2004. This source, from billboard, shows the award going to Remy Ma. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/66144/2004-source-hip-hop-music-awards-winners. There are so many false claims that i have probably skipped past some without realising. This article needs to be looked over from start to finish, and the editor who has inserted these lies needs to be banned from altering this page. KaneZolanski (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done enough I can for one night. I would recommend looking over the sources for the ASCAP Awards. The chances of all my edits being reverted by the editor are high. KaneZolanski (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj

if you could take a closer look on what is sourced and unsourced on this article to avoid an article "war" it would be appreciated, as I have looked though and found data that may be false being reverted without citations, thanks.—9thinning001(talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

The sockpuppet is back. Same behaviour as before. In the past there was some suspected IP socking too. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence would you like to present of your accusations? It appears to me you would provide some if you had it. I'm beginning to suspect you just want to justify your disruptive edits, which I see have gotten you blocked many times in the past. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I arrived here because Acupuncture happened to be at the top of my watchlist where I saw this edit with edit summary "reverting disruptive edit. Don't bite the newbies" from an account that is under two days old. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at the top of the talk pages it says, "Please be welcoming of newcomers". When you click on it, it says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So I'm not allowed to say don't bite me because I'm a newbie? Why is everyone being so combative?Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I arrived at this page because I was looking at quackguru's editing history and noticed his post here. I also noticed he has been blocked and banned numerous times for disruptive editing, edit warring, and even warned not to edit war at all. He has been told, and I think by you, that the three revert rule he warned me about didn't apply to him. He's not allowed to revert even less than three times based on his editing history. Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you think ignoring me is a good idea? You are continuing to make disruptive edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, you are being your own worst enemy again. I'm aware. I'm watching. I'm contemplating what, if anything, to do. Making my orange bar flash every few minutes will not make me go faster.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

You might be interested in giving input here. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user

Can you please give Favre1fan93 a final warning for re-adding archive.is links after they have been removed? Oh and just a heads up Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 Werieth (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a word with STATicVapor ? They persist to editwar archive.is links back into articles. Werieth (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time

Hi. If you believe this to be a copyvio, then why do we have full lists of films like AFI 100?? I strongly suggest you take a look in Category:Top film lists. The films were put in chronological order anyway. I can see that some articles only pick the top 10 though. Can you at least restore the list to my user space? If I simply have a list of films and remove mention of the source then it's hardly copyrightable. That Indian newspaper doesn't own the rights to the film titles. I thought it a valuable list of notable Indian films which I personally found useful, given that most lists are Anglo centric and that it would be useful for the Indian project to find articles to develop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it to be a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation and, as such, cannot be restored. If you reproduce the list without crediting the source, that still violates the copyright (and I have a hard time believing that you don't know that). The AFI list has an OTRS ticket (2007041310002766) releasing its contents. As for any other such lists that you encounter, delete them on sight.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty crazy. I could draw up a list of the 100 films in any random order which happened to be cited in that list on this talk page and that wouldn't make it a copyvio if I added more titles to it from the Indian group input. It would simply be a list of films,The newspaper does NOT own the rights to the titles of films and the idea that they would have the power to the titles of the films is ludicrous. Where would this silliness stop? Not permitted to mention Scorsese's favourite films because he owns the copyright to it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the objective inclusion criteria that guides the law. When the compilation criteria is based on an opinion, a value is placed on the opinion, and thus copyright law protects that value. If you were to build a list, say, of "Indian films that placed on three or more lists of Greatest Films", that would have an objective inclusion criterion and would not be protected. There are ways to get fairly close to where you want to be.—Kww(talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me the list by email then and I'll revise it with different entries and put in my own user space so it isn't a vio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Hey, just a heads up on the reverts between you and SergiSmiler, the credits on her Bangerz album does list her as a writer to some of the songs. Would that not qualify her as a songwriter? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I link to singer-songwriter. Miley Cyrus does not practice a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I never saw your edit summary about the singer-songwriter article. I only saw the last revert thinking it was the first, so nevermind. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

See Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 Werieth (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with him on getting a neutral phrasing in place. There was a little bit of surprise in the timing, but over all, I think it's probably a good idea to either reaffirm or deny the existing RFC consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a word with him, he is edit warring again on Dishonored. Werieth (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Go

Hi Kevin, I know that you are fairly experienced in terms of music articles, chart info, and radio release dates, so maybe you could look at this discussion regarding the radio and maxi single release of this song and give your input? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the problem in a nutshell the problem is, Forbidden and several other users are arguing with reliable sources and not assuming good faith and criticizing Chase and me for point out that they have been making weak points as to why the infobox should not reflect the Menzel's version has been released as a single. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Actually, the only page a blocked user can edit is their talk page (unless that access is specifically removed...). Sandbox, user page and all sub-pages are out of bounds. I can't find a reference for this - it must be laid down somewhere, surely. That's how it works, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Boostedmx5

Can you please explain why yoou think that Boostedmx5 is a sockpuppet? The user is asking to be unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history of Vivint, which was beset by sockpuppets, I came to the conclusion that Boostedmx5, The Voice of Reason 9999, Honestabe7777, and Joeearnest were all the same editor. I'd get a checkuser run before unblocking any of them, עוד מישהו.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please, when you block a user for sockpuppetry, leave some reasonable indication as to who the other accounts are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I was hoping you might be able to give me some insight as to what this message by GoFormer was about? I followed the link and haven't seen my username anywhere, so I'm a little confused. Mayast (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a known sock master who persists in harassing me. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply, Kww. Mayast (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles that are creation protected with loopholes

That was probably a confusing subject, but I have a question relating to it. An editor has recently created an article for an actress named Madison lintz (she was on The Walking Dead). Note the lowercase "l". This editor has bypassed a creation-protected page at Madison Lintz and created the article. I don't exactly know what to flag it as to mark it for deletion (it only contains sources to AMC's website and her parents' blog) so I come to you. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Madison Lintz page

Hi, so I saw that you recently deleted the page Madison lintz because based on WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion. I've been working on it recently and am assured that the last revision of the article has fixed the problems that led to the article's deletion last time around. I'd like to see the article reinstated because of this, thanks for your time.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) When it gets rightly deleted once, don't ever immediately re-create it in articlespace. User WP:AFC or a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. If and only if it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you then approach a wisened admin to review and possibly move into articlespace for you. Doing anything else (like recreating under a slightly different name) can lead to a block for disruption. the panda ₯’ 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS (Bangerz)

Can you watch it with the page? User:SergiSmiler undid its revision, though I undid it back. 'Composition' section says hip hop elements that is not the same thing. 183.171.161.153 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I provided the evidence here of a block evasion. Neuraxis calls me Quack [14]. This appears to be Déjà vu [15] again per WP:DUCK. Both Neuraxis[16][17] and CorticoSpinal[18][19] called me Quack and both share the same POV according to the evidence. Neuraxis was not here to build an encyclopedia. Both accounts also have similar names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.235.143.175

Suspected sock of Neuraxis/DVMt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64

Suspected sock of CorticoSpinal.

Both IPs originate from Ontario, Canada and both IPs were used for IP socking.

I read you explained that: It's policy: WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Where a sock account is used to violate his block, it is normal procedure to revert the edits. This is not my rule, it is Wikipedia's consensus.

Here is the issue: The suspected sock made a lot of changes against consensus and restored a page that was merged into Chiropractic education. The page was a redirect for 4 years.

I was thinking about reporting this or discussing this on the talk page but your comment on my talk page suggested you want to review things like this that may require admins to review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, QuackGuru, I strongly suggest that you fly these things by me. Can you give the page that was restored? I'm queasy about claiming we know enough about DVMt to say that we absolutely know that he was CorticoSpinal, so I want to be certain you have a good case made before anyone starts taking actions based on believing that he is. I'll review the CorticoSpinal connection more thoroughly, and see how comfortable I feel about the case.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neuraxis made changes to the Chiropractor page. You can review the edit history of the page to see that back in 2009 there was consensus for a merge and the page was redirected. In 2013 is when the changes started. I don't understand why he blanked the page in one if his edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been too many subsequent edits by valid editors for WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad to be applied any more, even if we could prove that CorticoSpinal was Neuraxis. That doesn't mean that you can't try redirecting it now that Neuraxis is blocked. It seems like he was the only editor fighting the redirect. If it gets put back, don't edit war over it.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Side note: Your talk page is moving way to the right. I'll try to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I was going to add User:Snake&Staff to the current SPI report.

See this edit and see this edit. Both accounts removed the word "deaths" from the lede. This is the source in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too old for checkuser to be of any use and pretty clearly a throwaway sock. I went ahead and blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following to the SPI report:

The IP 72.33.63.1 added the word "characterized" on June 4, 2014 and later on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede.[20][21] The wording "stated" is neutral rather than the word "characterized".

I think this is evidence that can be submitted to SPI. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too weak to submit, especially since Middle8 appears to be competent with English and the IP clearly is not.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feuds

I would like to find out your input about the "Feud" section on the Nicki Minaj page. I think that the addition of Foxy Brown and Remy Ma to that section was not needed because Minaj was not involved in any way with what is detailed there. Its basically just speculations and assumptions from different websites/blogs and no real connection to an actual "Feud", thus making the section false and making people believe there was an actual feud between them which is not the case. It was already discussed on the talk page but the reason they gave for it being there was that it had it had "credible sources". So do you think it should be classified as feuds even though Minaj has absolutely nothing to do with information given, whether verbally or physically. JACUBANHELADO (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in an article about a living person and sourced only to a blog, you can always delete it, JACUBANHELADO.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE report

I previously informed Middle 8 of the sanctions and about 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page. Middle 8 was just notified of the sanctions again by User:Robert McClenon but he is continuing to edit war:

Middle 8 was previously edit warring over the specific numbers.[22][23][24][25] On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede5:40, 25 June 2014 01:09, 4 July 2014 and on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "described" to the lede.11:55, 12 May 2014 23:57, 4 July 2014

I think this can be reported to AE or I can let you handle this situation. You wanted me to run things like this before I make a report. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a 3RR violation. I will discuss it with Middle 8.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certification Table Entry

Hi Kww, I have left some messages regarding a few issues for the certification template at the talk page of the above. Can you please take a look? If you are not the concerned person for making these changes, can you please direct me to someone who should? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punkox, again?

Hi Kevin. These edits are very similar to his. He's been repeatedly adding sales from Sony Japan's website (which are inflated, of course. It says it's sold 100K when original sales stand at 40K). Can you take a look? Ryoga (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's been adding fake certifications, again Kevin. Ryoga (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to submit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Middle 8 was recently warned for editing against consensus at the acupuncture page. Now User:Middle made changes against a clear consensus again with another sentence in the lede. Middle 8 unilaterally restored the old wording that was previously rejected. The previous wording was discussed in detail at Talk:Acupuncture#Original research again and the previous wording is supported by the source. Middle claims the wording is not supported by the source. (This was similar to a previous edit where he claimed the wording was unsourced. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#More re TCM .26 pseudoscience wording. He claimed on his talk page "(I don't remember why I also deleted the "with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments", but as you can see, somebody else restored it, which I didn't contest.)"[26]) Doc James made the specific proposal on the talk page.[27] I made the proposal in mainspace and this was also supported by another editor [28]. The change to the lede by Middle 8 was clearly against consensus according to the diffs presented.[29][30][31][32]

With your permission I would like to submit this to arbitration (or you can decide if anything should be done). I was told to run this by an admin first as you know. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 deleted sourced text claiming" per WP:BRD, rv series of bold edits by QuackGuru to version by Jmh649 at 08:50, 7 July 2014. Similar situation as Moffet; source comments on subset of literature reviewed, & doesn't support general statement. Talk: Special:Diff/616080486/616080558. The text is sourced using a systematic review of systematic reviews. Middle 8 was being disingenuous on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Another convenience break. He was also being disruptive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture again.

I would like to submit this, along with recent past disruption, to WP:AE or you can decide what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I out of line or...?

Hey Kevin, how are things? In my 9+ years on Wikipedia this is probably the most ridiculous disagreement I've ever had with someone, but can you keep a temporary eye on List of number-one dance singles of 2014 (U.S.)? In particular, the week of April 19: Billboard listed all three artists equally, names separated by commas; it has been displayed as such for months... however now User talk:Afavoritaweb is insisting that the names be formatted as "featuring", claiming that is the correct way to format names. The song's article lists the artists with "featuring" (although I think that is incorrect, as the single's cover art does not say "featuring" anywhere), and my point is just to keep things as was shown in Billboard (any of the source links will confirm this). Anyhoo, we've been back and forth a few times and I saw that you had some past history with this user, so I thought I'd ask for your assistance. Oh, and if you think that I'm being too critical here just let me know and I'll drop it... I can't believe I've even spent this much time on it already but, ya know........ - eo (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

I've mentioned the case you filed regarding office actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MediaViewer RfC. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Original text on talk page Template talk:Singlechart: Greece (Greece Digital Songs), Lebanon (The Official Lebanese Top 20), Mexico (Moniter Latino) and Turkey (Turkish Single Charts) still need a entry. I've noticed that a lot of mainstream singles have chart entries of at least one of these countries.--Kimberlylambert (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To get an entry, there needs to be a stable archive and a way to compute the URL for the archive entry from the date.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me with this? I'm trying to implement the four nations into it.--Kimberlylambert (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to the lead?

A million Trini's would disagree, as would Nicki herself the panda ₯’ 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage 5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 620

I'm not sure this is doing what it's supposed to. E.g. why was this disallowed? Or this one? Both are valid corrections to the article, the same change was recently made per request at Talk:New York City. Other filter hits appear to be from users blanking material. Disruptive, perhaps, but not consistent with the intent of the filter, right? I've changed it back to log-only, for now. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could also disable Special:AbuseFilter/616? It's been nearly a month since the last hit. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.138.231.134's new account Special:Contributions/Postcodez

Sorry for interrupt. IP's new account is editing non-stop. It was the same edit on Talk:808s & Heartbreak. 183.171.164.185 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoe

Hello Kww. I created the article on the Amigoe in order to get more information on its history and circulation (so that other editors can also take a look and analyze its reliability). Luckily, but strangely, the Spanish Wikipedia had an article on it; I have managed to translate it and include a couple of sources in English. You seem to have a better understanding of the newspaper, and think it would be helpful if you could add some information to the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find sources for. My familiarity with it is primarily from simply being a reader. While I preferred the Antilliaans Dagblad, I would read the Amigoe on occasion. I wish I had had the foresight to save the article we are discussing.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

808s & Heartbreak

Hey Kww, minutes after the page protection ended the socks returned to edit war about the genre. STATic message me! 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket they call it "Hitting a Big 6"

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your astute observation on Jimbotalk: "The WMF seems to be implementing features that make things 'modern' without sufficient engagement with the community to make sure that they will actually improve things and without spending time understanding the editing flow. Combine that with the dismissive attitude towards 'power users' and you have a breeding ground for problems. Quite simply, there's nothing about Media Viewer that I could describe as an "improvement" unless you presume the reason I want to examine the image is to get a larger version of the image, which I rarely want to do. Flow actually seems designed to intentionally interfere with our normal communication methods, ostensibly on the grounds that the reason people have a hard time joining the community is that editing talk pages is hard. In practice, it seems to be designed to encourage brief, superficial discussion without allowing us to branch into subtopics as easily." Kudos. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

Also

Kevin, please drop me an email if you get a chance. Talk pages don't swing it for this. ShoeHutch@gmail.com Thanks, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to file a SPI

See this edit by the Klocek sock account deleting text from the Nature source.
See this edit by Khawar.nehal making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source. The suspicious account knows something about arabic.[33]
See this edit by Technophant deleting sourced text from the Quackwatch source. On Technophant user page I remember reading he speaks a little arabic and he edits articles related to arabic.
See this edit by Ricflairsbutt making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source.
Acuhealth wrote: I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science.[34] Acuhealth deleted "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy"[35]
Technophant deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."[36]
Stillwaterising also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."[37]
Technophant is actually Stillwaterising.[38][39]
Stillwaterising is from Texas.[40] The IP sock is also from Texas.[41] See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
Stillwaterising created the Myofascial meridians article[42] Technophant restores text originally written by Stillwaterising.[43]
Technophant reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. Milliongoldcoinpoint also reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. Both reports were not a 3RR violation.
Technophant violated 3RR at acupuncture.[44] Klocek also violated 3RR at acupuncture See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive246#User:Klocek reported by User:Jmh649 .28Result: Blocked.29.
Technophant added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.[45] Ricflairsbutt also added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.[46]
With this new evidence I found there is definitely evidence of quacking. I request permission to file a SPI report. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QG, your evidence linking to Klocek is too weak. Your evidence linking Technophant to Stillwaterising is rock solid, but there's no evidence of a crime: your one diff of Technophant restoring an edit by Stillwaterising isn't going to do anything because the linkage was declared. I've warned Stillwaterising that [User_talk:Stillwaterising#Topic_ban the topic ban is still in effect]. Unless you can come up with a stronger linkage to Klocek, I think that's enough for now.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant deleted text on July 17, 2014[47] but previously on September 12, 2012 Stillwaterising deleted the same sentence (Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.).[48] I asked him if he deleted the sentence accidentally but rather than collaborate he banned me from his talk page.

The topic ban was on July 21. To avoid public scrutiny Stillwaterising deleted the connection to the other account, and he rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23. He then unjoined the project with the other account on July 24.

If you can see this edit, he added the text Clean start to his user page in late July of 2014. It was removed right after the topic ban and he then requesting speedy deletion of his user page. I think he deleted his user page to hide he was using another account. The only way to confirm the events with his user page is to have his user page history restored. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this and this. Both accounts know something about pharma. A checkuser is the best way to clarify this matter IMO. My gut is telling me this is the original account. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny things are happening again. This edit added an image and now this edit changed the image. I don't know what to believe anymore. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant and Stillwaterising are the same person.[49][50]

Stillwaterising is from Texas.[51] The previous IP sock is also from Texas.[52] See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129

The edit by the IP appears to be IP socking. The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92 I think a SPI would clarify this matter.

The IP 71.40.3.92 calls User:BullRangifer a "pit bulldog" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=prev&oldid=618267342

It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 claims "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern."[53]

Technophant calls BullRangifer "The Pit Bull" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=next&oldid=618435864

There appears to be evidence of socking. I request to submit this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. They can check for sleeper accounts. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that it is Technophant. Unfortunately, it precedes my last block of him. I'm watching for repetitions.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think there is no doubt it is him I will go ahead and file a case for the connection with the other Texas sock that is connected to Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can add this IP to the list. A very feeble attempt to seem foreign. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ban violation

Possible topic ban violation again. He put it aside and then created an attack page against me and other editors. I MFDed it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox2. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/93.186.23.82

Quite similar with Special:Contributions/93.186.23.96, she repeatedly added questionable source on Stay (Rihanna song). Huh Magazine (UK) did not have wiki page, and confused with huH (American magazine). 183.171.171.217 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwaterising/Technophant/My Core Competency is Competency

Hello Kww, I'm a bit confused--It looks like per the conversation here (link) that Technophant is stating that they are an alternate account of Stillwaterising, but in that discussion you make reference to this edit which seems to indicate that Technophant is an alternate account of My Core Competency is Competency. Can you please help explain how these accounts are related? Thanks... Zad68 03:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't focused on the bit with My Core Competency is Competency. I'll look into that. What I had noticed, Zad68, was this bit:"[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] • [[User_talk:Technophant|Talk]] • (formerly ([[User:Stillwaterising|Stillwaterising]])".—Kww(talk) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the part of the edit pertaining to My Core Competency is Compency was just a formatting fix: it was the only element of the list with a signature format instead of a bullet format.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes that makes sense, my misinterpretation, thanks. Zad68 03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all it was. And in case anybody is wondering I did inform a checkuser when creating the Technophant account and no I have never created or used any others. Stillwaterising (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Stories (Coldplay album)

The album's genre from source is electronica, but User:FilBenLeafBoy added alternative rock two times, however the user noted that saying do not remove alternative rock unless discuss on talk page. 183.171.161.83 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/content

Hi. Could you weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception? It concerns whether a line detailing a certain critic's grade is off-topic or inappropriate to include. Dan56 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Kww, I'm not sure how involved you've been with the Katy Perry article overall, but she currently is at FAC and your help/input would be highly appreciated. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"broadly construed"

You noted Technophant's attempt to remove that language in your comment here, but have accepted his version here.

It's a community topic ban, and the original language did include "broadly construed", so that does need to be restored.

Unfortunately, in the confusion and discussion with Technophant during his attempts to dictate the wording of his topic ban, Adjwilley's comment here left out those words:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

This version by Adjwilley is more accurate and includes the words "broadly construed" (my bold below):

Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A banned editor should not be dictating the terms of their ban (although I have no objection to adding the WP:BANEX language), nor have total control of their talk page when it is being used by the community for a community discussion. (My comments here should be on that page, not on this talk page.)

Under those conditions, legitimate comments should not be removed by the banned editor, nor the banned editor allowed to ban his accusers from his talk page, especially since this is part of the battlefield behavior which got him in trouble in the first place. During that time period, the page has effectively become the community's page for discussion of the issues, and all involved parties have a right to comment, as long as they are civil. The types of denials, attacks on accusers, and argumentation we've seen from Technophant would usually have resulted in a removal of talk page access, but that didn't happen.

My comment was quite civil, but he removed it [54][55]. That's not right. Since when do we reward disruptive editors?

He also repeatedly removed (whitewashing the page) and rearranged content (most of it his own comments) during these discussions, making it confusing because comments were made based on other comments which were no longer visible. He even managed to put a few comments in the wrong chronological order. I suggest that a guideline/policy be made for such discussions to the effect that no major archiving should occur during that time. Only legitimate and minor refactoring should be allowed, usually using strikethrough, and with good edit summaries. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also noteworthy to mention that he has not yet shown any understanding for why he was topic banned or blocked. Nothing at all. All we have seen is self-defense and attacks on his critics. It's all everybody else's fault but his own. With that attitude I am not optimistic. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another user removing archive.is

Hi Kww. Another user has come by and is continuing to remove archive.is links while the RfC is happening. They are User:Tabit Harik. See their contributions. If they can be blocked like the other users you had to deal with once the RfC had opened, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Archive Jihad is doing the same thing. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this topic here. It's been awhile since I have seen it and my memory may be wrong, but didn't a previous RfC (or other decision) decide to let bots and editors delete all those links? I wasn't aware there was another RfC in progress. What's happening? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: See Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the RFC was closed, it seemed quite short and I don't know how well broadcast it was? I don't know, what is the stage from here? Also, just to give you an idea of why I like archive.is, I have been hunting for the following source for 3 weeks, the original link is dead, web.archive had abandoned its snapshot altogether, you couldn't make a new archive nor see the original. Yet Archive.is has a snapshot of it, taken from the web.archive archive. This information that I have scoured and scoured for and am unable to find a replacement for can now be used because of archive.is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has no learning curve and is unintentionally being destructive

Jayaguru-Shishya was notified of the discretionary sanctions on April 4, 2014.

Past behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya:

I think there was a specific reason Jayaguru-Shishya decided to edit the chiropractic article. Jayaguru-Shishya obviously noticed the following contributions by Kshilts: Kshilts deleted pseudoscientific [56] and other text from the chiropractic lede[57][58][59]

Kshilts wrote on March 31, 2014 "I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked." But it was not Kshilts who put together references for the lede. It was Jayaguru-Shishya. What could possibly be his motivation for coming to the chiropractic article. Maybe Jayaguru-Shishya got upset at Mann jess.[60][61] and noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute with Kshilts. He probably noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute at chiropractic in late March of 2014.[62]

Shortly thereafter, on April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[63] that failed V.[64] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[65] and the text did not summarise the body. He wrote "I was trying to restore some contributions by Kshilts."[66] Jayaguru-Shishya never acknowledged he did anything wrong with adding OR to the lede. He also unintentionally ignored the past discussion in late March of 2014. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Lead changes.

Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[67] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at alternative medicine articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[68] where there was no consensus in the first place.[69][70][71] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[72] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[73] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment.

Jayaguru-Shishya restored text that was outdated POV at the acupuncture article. The outdated source from 1997 has a warning in red that explains the source is outdated.[74] Only after it was deleted again he agreed it was reasonable to delete it. There was an objection to the misplaced text but it was restored against consensus by Jayaguru-Shishya. The edit summary was "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it: WP:CON "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections..." <- no objections so far, and I'm in support | Also: (talk page)"[75] So what is the problem? He should check the source first to verify it is reliable rather than restoring disputed text.

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[76] Jayaguru-Shishya commented again on the talk page to support Middle8's edit without any specific explanation of his own: "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article."[77] Jayaguru-Shishya did not give a specific explanation for this revert to Middle's version that was presented out of content. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Original research in the article again.

Recent behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya at chiropractic:

Now there is another content dispute at chiropractic where Jayaguru-Shishya reverts to the version by Kshilts. I tagged the original research. The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)".[78] The OR and undueweight was restored. After the edit was reverted again[79] Jayaguru-Shishya blinding restored the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. He claims "I didn't add anything" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. He ignored the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my previous comment on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. He claims "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above."[80] But he is again not addressing the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus."[81] See Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes. Jayaguru-Shishya has a repeated pattern of incompetent editing and is failing to get the point. I would like to submit this to WP:AE or you can evaluate the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a bit of tit-for-tat going on: User talk:John#QuackGuru (again) and a previous User talk:John#Our friend User:QuackGuru again Jim1138 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S. blocked

Please see this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help from admin

Hi. Since you're an admin, could you address this personal attack somehow? Because I've addressed the editor's inaccurate and misleading use of a source, heavy-handed use of quotes, and grammatical error in both my edit summaries and responses to the article's talk page, articulated it fully, only to get a personal attack and accusation of ownership. Please revert them, address them, or something, because I'm itching to revert him myself, but don't want to have another edit war with someone nitpicking my prose. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this article was protected for TFA by Bencherlite, so maybe protecting it from new users (they've been around for since 15 July. Dan56 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's WP:OWN, Dan. Just because I am newer doesn't mean I can't edit your article. There are no grammatical errors in my edits; you are mistaken. Kww, please take a good look at the actual diff before deciding if Dan is right to jump all over me. MaximumEdison (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that he said: "[I] don't want to have another edit war with someone nitpicking my prose"?(unlike Wikipedia articles, the emphasis is mine) MaximumEdison (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...what you had...". The emphasis is yours. Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, this may be a sock of Jazzerino, blocked for hounding and harassing me at articles I'm a significant contributor at, starting with Misterioso (User talk:Jazzerino). What led me to believe this have not been the tedious syntax changes at Misterioso (which is what started Jazzerino's behavior), or the WP:OWN accusations littered like by Jazzerino at their talk page and his edit summaries reverting me, but how this revision regarding "choppy sentences" by Jazzerino at Misterioso is the exact change as this change regarding the same "choppy" sentences by MaximumEdison. Quite eerie. Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, thanks for your diligence. I appreciate it. Dan56, I'm sorry that you got a sock master on your tail. I'm going to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, obviously. It doesn't alleviate all of my concerns, at least not immediately, but you'll have noted that mine were much less numerous than those of Harmelodix, for whom I have no love. I'd never run into this Jazzerino character--if you had suspicions already, though, why didn't you bring them up earlier? Or didn't you suspect them until now? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Vanillagreek

Can you sockpuppet him/her? He/she is User:MariaJaydHicky's new account. 183.171.161.9 (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted meatpuppetry, removal of comment in block discussion by User:Technophant

Greetings Kww. While I hesitate to increase my involvement in this situation I feel the issue may be serious enough to warrant action. My concerns are twofold.

First is the attempt to engage in meatpuppetry by discussing and proposing edits to pages from which the user is blocked including off wiki activity

11:30, 29 July 2014 "more about maps"
00:48, 4 August 2014 "restoration of bad faith removal"
00:26, 5 August 2014 "last edit for a while, add MrBill3 to banned user list"
00:12, 5 August 2014 "ok, here's my 2cents"
03:49, 5 August 2014 ""
06:08, 5 August 2014 ""

Second is the removal of a post providing evidence of this from the section on discussion of block review

00:12, 5 August 2014 "Undid revision 619784338 by MrBill3 (talk) let it go"

This is of particular concern as I am under the impression it is appropriate to post to a user's talk page in discussion of blocks, bans, NB filings etc. and not appropriate to refactor others comments in such discussions. I am sure you are aware that multiple comments have been refactored in several discussions of this kind. There has also been removal of block reviews and multiple refactoring of block review requests. I don't think this editor is demonstrating a willingness to work within PAG, engage collaboratively or genuinely attempt to improve the encyclopedia.

Sorry to bring this to your talk page as I am sure you have better things to do. If this should be the subject of an ANI filing or some other process please let me know. Thank you for your contributions to WP. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on this, but my impression right now is that doing nothing is the best thing. No admin is likely to unblock him and his efforts at meatpuppeting have been limited. There's not enough meat there to warrant remove talk-page access at this time. I've left a small note at Pc123ct1's talk page about proxying.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww: Thank you for your message. I was aware of that policy and it never entered my head in this instance. The emails will be personal, and if he attempted to edit through me, of course I would resist it. I can understand your caution and take your message in the spirit it was made, but from my experience of him on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, I cannot imagine for a minute that he would attempt this. He asked me to email, and I had been wanting to for a while anyway, but didn't know how to (am fairly new to editing in Wikipedia). On those pages, since I began editing there in early June, I have found him nothing but a helpful and vigilant editor who contributed a lot to improving the article, without any edit-warring or disputes with others, and everything that has happened recently has come as a very big surprise. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww: I don't think an email exchange will be sustained. All I have had is more of the same as on his Talk page (grievances). --P123ct1 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had more emails, but no meatpuppetry involved! But it is obvious he is keen to get back to editing the pages we share work on (non-medical), so please give him a chance. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source noticeboard

Here, you can see the verdict of WP:RSN regarding the 1895 published book. I will therefore remove it from the article. If you have any concerns, please, kindly have them resolved in the noticeboard.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for "The Pink Print" to the "The Pinkprint". Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728). Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014. Thank you for your time, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Now I better understand why...

I'm surprised and bothered that such a simple RfC has yet to create any sort of consensus on the Natalee Holloway matter. I can't understand why either, as I personally find the topic quite interesting (from an academic standpoint, but also for the mystery). Nonetheless, this also makes me consider that it wasn't necessarily Overagainst's long texts that made discussions complicated (other Wikipedians just don't really seem to care about the case). Let me know if you can think of anything else that can be done about it (maybe relisting the RfC and adding more categories to it?).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a bit of a bias, MarshalN20, but I suspect that has a lot to do with why people tend to see an article ownership problem: there are occasional editors that get very emotional about a point and only a few editors that care enough about the topic to fend them off. I see the problem with the particular RFC is that you didn't ask a very interesting question. Nearly everyone would agree that JvdS's conviction in Peru deserves to be mentioned. The point of disagreement is whether mentioning it in the lead presents an WP:UNDUE issue. I believe it does, because it creates an expectation that of course JvdS must have killed Natalee too. Others do not, but that may be because they think it is obvious that JvdS killed Natalee too, so creating that expectation in the reader's mind doesn't seem to be a problem.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is about the criminologists' (etc.) opinion and its relevance in the section on Peru. This is not the lead question. I'm concerned now that the RfC question really is that confusing; but, maybe you made a minor misread of it? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I do understand what you mean about the lead question, and will make sure to mention it clearly when presenting an RfC for it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have expanded it from the initial version that I read. It's better, but still not focused on something that you will get strong opinions on.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help... revisited

Sorry to bother again, but another editor--EastCoaster007--whose account creation coincided with others after Jazzerio's block has popped up again (with no edits since 22 June) on 6 August, a day after Harmelodix was blocked, to "notice ... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56" and take a random interest in files I uploaded to my GAs. What caught my eye mostly was the fact that this editor was one of those to make tedious, syntax changes ("tweak") to my FA Song of Innocence (around the same time as Jazzerino and Harmelodix in June). Another editor to devote so much time to reviewing me again. It may quack some, and at this point, I have very little good faith after the above nonsense. With only minor changes to articles starting during a few days in June, then returning with a concerted effort and focus on me only as it appears in their edit history, it seems really suspect. Dan56 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha videography

I noticed that the Kesha videography was deleted because It was created by a blocked user, but since Kesha has made 17 music video appearances, I think it should be restored, so her discography page isn't too long. If not, could I just have the text? Keshasbyotch (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but could you please take the time to reply?

Keshasbyotch (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't provide the text to any article created by a banned user, no. Personally, I doubt that a videography article is a good idea, but I have no strong feelings on the topic.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want the text, as I think it may have been a good article or at least a stub to improve on. She has made a lot of appearances in music videos, and since you have no strong feelings, please can I use it as a draft? To then improve on? Keshasbyotch (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I will not provide the text to any article created by a banned user.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: Please - hear me out, I'm trying my best to keep my argument within reason, and all I am asking you to do is do the same. Maybe that user was on to something, but I can't know that unless I see what was written, and then I can change it, so the article will not have any ties to the blocked user. You're right, it was a G5 violation and they don't deserve to have their article published, but I just need the text so it won't be THEIRS. It'll just mean I have enough information and referencing in one place to go on. Thank you.

Keshasbyotch (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: I find that you're being very unreasonable by not putting petty issues aside for no GOOD reason. Thank you, but I know when to arguing with someone like this is the same as talking to a wall. At least the wall would be helpful enough to give me something to lean on - you're just stubborn. Thank you for your utmost consideration. Keshasbyotch (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive behavior

Thanks for commenting on that deceptive behavior. What he wrote is an outright lie. I noticed it, but have been reticent to comment because of that improper "banning" from his talk page. Such banning should not be allowed in a situation as this. A blocked editor has fewer, not more, rights. His "request" has also now turned into a demand. That's very unfortunate. He's not in a position to demand anything. This is all what happens when talk page access isn't denied earlier. We end up with lots of crap to deal with. I see no evidence of repentance. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Dan56 with content disputes

I'm no expert, but a quick glance at your contributions reveals that you assist Dan56 at several articles whenever he is in an edit war with others. Shouldn't you, as an admin, remain neutral regarding content? You helped remove hip-hop from 808 and Heartbreak, but Relevant magazine says, "This reviewer can say without a doubt that 808s & Heartbreak is the best Kanye West album to date, and the best hip-hop album of 2008." Why is "the best hip-hop album of 2008" not explicit enough? CountGramula (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I meant was, if you are going to intercede in content disputes and revert to Dan56's preferred version, then you shouldn't also be blocking everyone Dan56 gets into an edit war with. It seems like you either get involved with the content disputes as an involved editor, or you block suspected socks that edit war with Dan, but you shouldn't be doing both. CountGramula (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CountGramula, not every revert is engagement with content. Kww has a right to revert (or mass rollback) edits by a sock. I don't always agree with such mass reverts, but accusing him of siding with one party in a content dispute while using his tools, that's incorrect. Dan56 is indeed followed, stalked, harassed by one sock puppeteer, one who fooled me too (User:Harmelodix). This is not to say that I side with Dan since often enough I disagree with him on content. In other words, I think this is a bit bigger than you suggest it is, and I doubt that Kww blocks everyone Dan disagrees with, since he hasn't blocked me yet. There is a big fat SPI on that puppet master and you should look at it, and you should give Kww some credit. If you want to re-revert individual edits that you think are positive, that's fine with me, and I hope that's fine with Kww also. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point I guess, and I don't doubt that Dan has his share of socks following him, but Kww has blocked several accounts that Dan56 edit wars with, restoring the article in question to Dan's preferred version. I just thought that they should either block socks or get involved in content disputes, but not both, as they appear as a personal admin bodyguard that blocks accounts and restores Dan's version. If I were an admin, I would do one or the other, but not both. I did look at the SPI, BTW, but I don't see any concrete evidence that any of these accounts have been technically connected to Jazzerino. Kww seems to have taken the position that anyone who edit wars with Dan56 must be either Jazzerino or MariaJaydHicky, but it looks like a vigilante style duck test that lacks technical evidence, which is a really good reason for Kww to reconsider their involvement with Dan56. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I am actually half-expecting to be blocked now too, since I made the fatal error of getting involved with Dan's uber-tedious content disputes. CountGramula (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have several tests beyond "fights with Dan56" that I apply before blocking an editor. Unfortunately, you did fail one of them, so your account did wind up blocked. It would be nice if you simply went away and stopped wasting everyone's time. Ultimately, an established editor that didn't create dozens of accounts to fight with him will take care of any legitimate issues with his editing. All you are doing is making it more and more likely that such an editor would be erroneously blocked.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saban troll

Can you just turn his filter back on? He's posting the same screed to his user talk now that he's blocked, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new thread on ANI to address this and have identified two ranges. Do you think you could take a look?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry

There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Music on whether or not certification icons should be applied to Template:Certification Table Entry. Erick (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 559

Hi, any idea what's going on here? I can't see any reference to archive.is Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

User:Herbxue is keeping diffs in a sandbox that is related to acupuncture and he is participating in a discussion related acupuncture.[82][83] He was previously informed he was violating his topic ban.[84] I can submit this to WP:AE or you can evaluate the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like he hasn't touched it since being advised it was a topic ban violation. Therefore, I won't take any action and you should not pursue this further.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You are an amazing Wiki! HaroldSalasI (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus!

I thought you might be interested in learning that the overwhelming consensus of historians who have studied this matter all agree that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified at the order of P.P. This isn't just biblical scholars, but real honest to God historians. It is an almost certainty that Jesus was a real person. This water into wine business, and other "miracles" well that's quite a different matter. But rest assured, Jesus was as real as Julius Caesar.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Historians who have studied this matter" is somewhat of a self-selecting list, which creates a bias problem, one extremely similar to the problem we have with finding scientists that have studied electronic voice phenomena. I'm listening, though: if you can demonstrate the existence of any significant number of non-Christian, non-Muslim historians that have studied the the problem and come to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I'd be very interested. They aren't listed in our article on the subject, and I'm unaware of their existence.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My dear good man (forgive my presumption), I have no desire to involve myself in the argument at ANI nor the article. It's too contentious for my blood. I posted here for that reason. I can't rmember the documentary I saw, but I believe it was on PBS. It was a secular investigation into the existence of Jesus, and it relied on eyewitness accounts on the events leading up to Jesus' trial and execution. These accounts were recorded by scribes of the time. Are those scribes reliable sources? I won't offer an opinion, but the panel of secular and non-secular historians universally agreed JoN gathered followers, caused a ruckus and got shiskabobbed for his troubles. I kind if liken this to climate change. I'm completely unqualified to offer an opinion, but I do believe the experts who say its a real thing. I'll ask my folks about it tomorrow and see if I can find the title for you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A title would certainly be a step in the right direction. A documentary that you can't quite remember what it was, where you saw it, or who was on it isn't a particularly persuasive argument.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline. And here is some text from an Evangelical site complaining about the series:

America's PBS television (Public Broadcasting System - viewer and tax supported) is currently broadcasting a seductive, but dangerously inaccurate film series about Jesus Christ and the early church. The series is part of the FRONTLINE program and is entitled "From Jesus to Christ, the First Christians."[1]

The series was developed by a producer who appears to enjoy using his position to promote left-wing, liberal beliefs.[2] He promises to reveal "the real story of the rise of Christianity… challenging and upsetting conventional ideas." One of the scholars used in the series is the liberal Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan[3], [4]. The series also heavily promotes their PBS Web site on this subject, which among other things promotes: "Writings from, and about, the Jesus Seminar, the controversial group of scholars which meets and determines, by vote, the veracity of stories and texts about Jesus."

It is worthy of note that no evangelical scholars were used in the series. Rather, the emphasis was on people from such liberal institutions as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, Union, etc. According to Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, the series "does not acknowledge distinctively evangelical perspectives at any point."[5]

Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that liberals and non-evangelicals were automatically non-Christian and non-Muslim. I suspect that they weren't aware of that either.—Kww(talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems lots of people want to question motives on this subject. Not me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit filter

Can you point me at some RFC or formal discussion that would support filtering it, Ryulong? Content-based filters need fairly strong justification.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nationalistic vandalism. I posted about it on ANI but I was told to just RBI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's gotten bolder and calling my reverts "communist PRC propaganda". He also seems to like the same sentence to describe Taiwan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, different situation. I keep having to request protection on List of marine biologists because an anime's fans kees adding a character to it. Do you think you can do something with edits like these?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overly restrictive filter 601

Hi. I am told you’re the author of filter 601, which is apparently the ID of the filter that’s rather unpredictably disallowing my edits. Could you tell me why this is, and/or put a stop to it? I’d greatly appreciate either option. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early non-admin close

The discussion was closed to early and no rational explanation was given to oppose the page move. See Talk:Chiropractor#The_title_is_ambiguous_and_incorrect. See Talk:Chiropractor#Requested_page_move_2. To avoid wasting time the page should be moved so that the contents and the title match.

See WP:BADNAC: "Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator"... QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't particularly early: RM's usually run a week. In six days, you didn't have anyone supporting your position. It would have been irresponsible to close the RM any other way.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was there were only two other comments and the editor who opposed wrote "we would probably agree that the content of the article doesn't really match the title"[85] He know the contents does not match the title. Another editor also understands the same thing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter piper picked pickling, not pickled, peppers.

I learned this nursery rhyme in the 1940's. I think that the later source has been corrupted. I'm not willing to engage in a flame war over this topic, despite its world-shaking importance, so I suggest that both of us search for earlier sources of the rhyme. Vegasprof (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/T.Wells kid

A new user from MariaJaydHicky. Can you sockpuppet him/her, and revert his/her edits? 115.164.57.198 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/86.138.228.101

Much likely similar edit pattern from T.Wells kid on Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song). Can you please sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.164.156 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant

This matter needs to be looked at by several admins who know the history and/or have used Technophant's talk page, so I'm pinging Kww, Adjwilley, Jmh649, Zad68, Dougweller, Brandon, and Golbez. I'm also pinging the involved "banned" editors: QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3. Since I am "banned" from their talk page, I'm doing this here, but this should not be necessary.

Here's what just reappeared:

Banned users

Due to disruptive edits, insults to myself or others, personal attacks, harassment or other incivility, users QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3 are indefinitely banned from editing on my talk pages. I had tried to make a "free speech" zone where editing would be allowed, however I no longer wish to do this. I'm done being bullied. I am asking for a mutual WP:IBAN to allow Wikipedia to once again be a safe place from personal attacks and harassment. diff

This totally unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant is very odd. Why? Obviously their repentance was only feigned, and therefore an indef ban should be reconsidered on behavioral grounds. Take a look at their talk page history and you'll see no provocations at all. All those strong personal attacks are just placed there, without any evidence. They are gross failures to AGF. AGF is a policy and such a gross violation is sanctionable. That needs to happen, and Technophant instructed that they are not allowed to ban any editor who comments civilly, even if it's unpleasant.

Such page bans are an abuse of the purpose of our talk pages, and prevents proper use of Technophant's talk page. It's a blatant personal attack on all of us and it's very uncollegial/uncollaborative. An editor who doesn't try to get along with other editors really shouldn't be here. If they really want an interaction ban, as the edit indicates, then they should be locked up on their own talk page and not be allowed to edit or comment anywhere else. Put them in isolation with a vow of silence! That way they get their wish....no interaction. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I was pinged I'll chip in. So far as I am concerned so long as Technophant abides by the topic ban and refrains from more direct personal attacks, I am not concerned. While this is a backhanded accusation of bullying which I mildly object to, it doesn't concern me much. As an improperly requested IBAN I don't expect it to go anywhere. I have no intention of posting to that user's talk page unless appropriate per policy. If Technophant edits in some way that I find it necessary to post to their talk page it would involve probably just a template with comment or notification. I have no reason to anticipate this at this time. My editing interests don't seem to extend into the areas Technophant edits in (outside the topic ban with minor exceptions). I think if ROPE is left available and used then some action might be appropriate. I don't know if BullRangifer's editing interests on articles have created a reason for their interest. My experience with BullRangifer does not give me cause to suspect they would be wielding a STICK but this seems a bit of an over reaction. If my reading of this is wrong or my response seems off, my talk page is open. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pissed off at being attacked out of the blue, for no legitimate reason, and such a gross violation of AGF and NPA then goes unpunished. We really need to either get rid of NPA and AGF totally, or enforce them. At the very least a warning needs to be given. They should strike those personal attacks. Here I was looking forward to being able to edit peacefully and collegially alongside Technophant, but he just poisons the atmosphere. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just irritated by the continuously unclosed SPI in which he is named. I dislike his tone, and have always believed that talk page bans should be impermissible, but, unfortunately, the community as a whole disagrees with me about that (and disagrees quite strenuously, so far as I can tell). There's nothing here for me to act on.—Kww(talk) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unprovoked personal attacks? There's something to be done there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution: unwatchlist his talk page. There's no reason for you to continue to interact with him. (See also WP:OWB #65.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love that page! It's been on my watchlist for years. BTW, I don't interact with him at all. While ignoring and allowing policy violations (always interpreted by the perp as approval and encouragement) is not a thing for any loyal and experienced Wikipedian to do, especially for admins, #39 does fit this situation quite well.

Ultimately it's up to admins what type of message you all want to send, because inaction (when informed) is a deliberate action which sends a clear message, and it will be interpreted as approval. General history here tells us that, and especially the history in this case. If you doubt my interpretation, I can inform you that I have a legal precedent, in which the judge used my logic above, and my exact wording, in her decision, thus getting a malicious prosecution case against over 30 people and entities thrown out. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have a large contingent of editors that doesn't understand the harm that things like this cause. If I were to follow my own opinions, too many would be eager to interpret that as some kind of petulance over Adjwilley having overriden my block of Technophant despite my explicit and specific objections to him having done so. It's just not a big enough issue for me to be able to argue that any reasonable admin would take action.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just unwatch the talk page. Admins aren't the police and they aren't anyone's mom. If you want to keep watching the talk page because "I love that page" it's not up to us to send some message because you don't like what you see. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I was referring to my "love" for this page: WP:OWB (User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior). -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The point remains. Ignore the editor, unwatch their talk page and all of this will melt away. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done what I could by bringing this to all of your attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also invite Brangifer (talk) to unwatch my Talk page too. For the record, I never initiate contact with it, and I always delete its comments, as permitted. I already have a mom who cares about me. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to locate SPI

Hey I'm trying to find the SPI that led to the blocking of User:Keshasbyotch. I'd like to review it. It says he was an Sock of User:SayaamRulz, but I can't find an investigation mentioning either of them over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations even using the search. Zell Faze (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Please either {{ping}} me or reply on my talk page.[reply]

I'd also like to ask that Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha is restored. This draft showed promise and I see no reason to delete it. If its needs another steward, I can take up that role. Zell Faze (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't find the investigation even when searching everything. Was one conducted? Zell Faze (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no formal investigation, Zell Faze: the socking was too obvious to require one. And no, I will not restore articles that were created in defiance of a block.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If as at all possible I'd like to see diffs to substantiate that. I'm happy to change my opinion if you are able to provide compelling evidence. From the interactions that I had with him he did not seem like an editor that much experience. He was asking me for help with using citation templates just a few days ago. I'm going to bring up the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review then. I'll add a link here when I've opened the request. Zell Faze (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my earlier comments about him not being a sock. Zell Faze (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:List of songs recorded by Kesha. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zell Faze (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Your comments you made on my talk page saying ""I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to Technophant's block won't repeat themselves" and will also add obviously Technophant's repentance was only feigned and short lived." have come back to haunt me here. I don't know if you've been following my actions, but I'm guessing you have. I've interacted, mostly by email, with User:Adjwilley, and User:Doc James regularly and I have stayed away from topic ban areas, wrestled my daemons, and found a newer more respectful place in this universe. I hope you can revise your statement. If I remember right it was you final word about me. I hope you've changed your mind. ~Technophant (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you my review "QuackGuru/SkepticalRaptor/Yobol" SPI draft in my sandbox2. ~Technophant (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, whom I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Simplifying my excessive parsing, the question is simply how to cite an Ernst paper -- per User:Middle_8/Ernst-11 -- but now JzG/Guy is just going to email Ernst. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 05:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeadSend4

I am responding to the user's UTRS ticket, and before proceeding, I thought to ask you: would you object to a conditional unblock with a clear Mariah Carey & Christina Aguilera TBAN, and that any violation of the TBAN and/or resonable doubt of violating our policy on meatpuppety will result in an immediate indef block, considering reblocking can be done easily? I understand the block reason used was for "abusing multiple accounts" (actually for alleged meatpuppetry), but considering how difficult it would be to "prove" these meat/canvassing allegations, unblocking with conditions to reblock if/when these conditions are violated may be helpful IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban would suffice, Salvidrim. As for proof, it's only hard to prove now because the forums he was posting on took the call to arms into private sections so that they couldn't be monitored any more. At the time of the block, there was no reasonable doubt.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lightning fast reply. I will submit the TBAN conditions to the user and ublock if he accepts them clearly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 (Adele album)

Kww, you might be interested in it. Mind you a clear cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL is going on with users resorting to even use sites like Perezhilton.com. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 is continuing to edit against consensus

User:Middle 8 was notified of the discretionary sanctions[86][87] and he was notified of 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page.

Middle 8 is continuing to try to rewrite or delete the same sentence:

Revision as of 13:16, 8 July 2014 He deleted sourced text but claimed the source doesn't support general statement. In the previous discussion, Middle 8 claimed RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness. He had a discussion on User:RexxS's talk page too. See User_talk:RexxS/Archive_25#Ernst_re_pain..._and_talk.... There was a discussion about using the source. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51#Acupuncture_again.

Revision as of 05:45, 31 August 2014 He replaced sourced text with original research in the lede. His edit was also a violation of lede because it did not summarise the body.

Revision as of 07:58, 1 September 2014 He reworded the text to alter the meaning of the sentence. The part "may be" was original research. See Talk:Acupuncture#Summarize.

Revision as of 12:52, 7 September 2014. Now he replaced sourced text with SYN and OR. For example, the part "that indicates a lack of effectiveness" was original research. He is repeatedly adding text to the lede that does not summarise the body and he is repeatedly replacing sourced text with text that failed verification. See Talk:Acupuncture#Explaining_sham_acu_to_the_reader_in_lede. There is another discussion where editors support using the source for a conclusion.[88][89] See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Acupuncture_source.

I request permission to submit the above to WP:AE or you can decide if anything should or should not be done. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry, that last edit was premature; it would have been better to discuss on talk. But Kww, QuackGuru simply isn't telling the whole truth here. It's very hard to collaborate with him -- cf. Talk:Acupuncture#Request_re:_collaboration -- and he reverts anything he doesn't like. Then when I try to improve it, he reverts that, and then presents the diffs of my edits as "edit warring". That's the case here. Anything paraphrasing or summarizing is always "OR" with QG. I've tried to de-escalate this conflict between us [90], but to no avail [91].

Before going forward please give me a chance to respond properly. It may take a day or two, but there are no deadlines (and of course I'll refrain from further edits to the article in the interim; QG may wish to do the same). As before, there's more than meets the eye, so, benefit of the doubt, please. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) couple more edits as of 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd really like to do, and maybe we can do this before escalating and throwing around accusations, is to try and unravel the underlying content dispute -- and then take a nice long break. I've been trying to understand where QG is coming from, but it's not always easy; sometimes he simply doesn't reply. I've posted a question for QG at his user talk [92]: User_talk:QuackGuru#Important:_Could_you_clarify.3F. Maybe with a calm, neutral third party like Kww present, "moderating" the conversation in the sense of encouraging us to be clear with each other, we can cut through the logjam. I'd prefer that to playing "who can dig up the worst diffs" games; that's bad for the wikistress.

Kww, much of this hinges on how to interpret the context of an Ernst statement. It's not a hard call imo, but does take about 10-15 minutes to read the source. If you wish, please see User:Middle_8/Ernst-11-excerpts. And just email me if you need a copy. Discussion is at WT:MEDRS#Acupuncture_source. Thanks! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI & FWIW, discussion of the last edit QG objected to is here: Talk:Acupuncture#Explaining_sham_acu_to_the_reader_in_lede. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Kww, I've attempted to discuss substance, and addressed QG's complaints, at Talk:Acupuncture [93]. Inspection shows I'm not "disrupting" at all -- actually am gently steering toward consensus wording from July [94]. Please ask QG to stop doing this; it's a vendetta.

Re RexxS; QG omits context. I like RexxS, and he's a very good editor, but sometimes the heat of his rhetoric eclipses the light, with hyperbole and ABF. Cf. here and here passim.
See: Wikichecker for just how intense QG's WP:OWN issues are. Do have a look at Talk:Acupuncture#Request_re:_collaboration. Suggest you encourage some disengagement, perhaps mentoring.

Thanks. I'm going on Wikibreak now. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently User:Middle 8 is continuing to revert back in the same disputed text over and over again.

Revision as of 06:33, 13 October 2014.

Revision as of 09:14, 13 October 2014.

Revision as of 15:52, 21 October 2014. According to his edit summary, he claims I agree with him.

I currently don't agree with the change and I explained it over and over again on the talk page. Other editors also disagree with the change including User:Jmh649 and User:Dominus Vobisdu.[95][96] I don't understand why he is continuing to restore the unnecessary wording. The current discussion is at Talk:Acupuncture#Restoration of verifiable material. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't user Dominus Vobisdu just got banned for his actions[97][98]. What really counts is the quality of arguments in the discussion. Dominus Vobisdu gave none.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. [...] The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. (WP:TALDONTREVERT)

These concerns have been brought to discussion at 15:28, 13 October 2014[99]. During all this time, the he didn't participate the discussion (except for a personal attack that got redacted. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Regarding QuackGuru's comments above at 17:45, 21 October 2014: As a matter of fact, my edit indeed restores a broad consensus we reached in July, with discussion at article talk and discussion at WT:MED, with a lot of editorial eyes. And QuackGuru in fact supported that wording, enthusiastically, with a big "thumbs up" in his ES.

Consensus was to accept a bold edit by Vzaak, which said "A systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture". And we got it right, substantively (see explanations at my comment here beginning "Put simply:...", and here, "(e/c) Because it was a review of reviews and the RCT was cited as an exception," et passim). And that consensus still applies, for reasons I stated here, at "@QuackGuru Yes, I saw your comment...". I have no idea why QuackGuru has changed his mind, but if he's implying that he never supported it, that's disingenuous.

When QuackGuru reverted my recent consensus-restoring edit, he was wrong to claim "violation of consensus" in his ES. That ES may have misled a couple of editors who watch the article and, following QuackGuru, reverted my edit -- but, as Jaya-S notes above, it's been over a week and none of them has objected to my explanation. (Cf. discussion at article talk here and here, and at user talk pages for Doc James, McSly, and Dominus Vobisdu.)

OK, Kww, just making sure my side is heard. I'm sorry to see QuackGuru still considers this page to be the "Middle 8 complaints department", but suppose you're used to it. What I really don't like is the time it takes me to refute his objections, which tend to be dubious, as here -- and that is why I suggest you consider a boomerang, this time or next time. It takes balls to say that I violated consensus when I actually restored a consensus edit that he supported at the time! Anyway, happy editing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belize

Why does it seem Americans have a hard time living in Belize for any length of time? I've been there, and it does seem charming, and an easy place to be. Yet, I've noticed that ex-pats who live there don't seem to last all that long. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FugaDeAmor

User FugaDeAmor has still been adding deprecated and other unreliable charts on Belinda's album charts despite repeated warnings not to do so and recentley reverted my edit when I removed unreliable charts that have America Top 100. Erick (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Te Voy A Esperar may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned users MfD

Hi Kww. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evasion

Noted your block on IP 50.150.100.229 for block evasion by User:Mbz1 but her Userpage displays it as retired which is wrong as the user is evading it the user is banned can this be changed.Further I have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbz1 just for information.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible return of Jazzerino, not sure though

Account created 31 August, around the time of all those blockings of Jazzerino's socks. This user Rational Observer's contributions are focused strictly on syntax and grammatical changes, bookended by two strenuous attempts to obstruct actions by me--their first series of edits or involvement at WP was opposing a change I had proposed ([100]), seeing it all the way to what they felt was its end ([101]), and most recently at opposing an FAC of mine, the first they've reviewed, with trivial objections to syntax and a concerted effort to subvert the guideline on close paraphrasing that justifies its use in the article ([102], [103]) and derail the FAC, which they've now turned to a referendum on "dan56 and close paraphrasing". More careful than Harmelodix and Flow Ridian (whose disruption also spilled over into a review of my past FAC) if any of this is true, and like Harmelodix, their revelations raise some red flags to me (Harmelodix, RationalObserver on their past experiences). All accounts' edit summaries quack some; they also focus significantly on WP:LQ, and RationalObserver's comments about checking for compliance with LQ are eerily familiar to Flow Ridian's few remarks about "Check[ing] the article for compliance with LQ". Flow Ridian's original aim at WP is in effect the other users' activities as well. But what raised a red flag in my mind originally, enough to start digging again, was this comment by Rationalobserver about how I "always resort to personal attacks and insults"; what could they be referring to as an editor with (presumably) no previous direct exchanges with me? Also, I think I've hit some pressure point, and their focus is back on me after an attempt at abstaining since those socks had been blocked. I don't know if this is enough for a CheckUser attempt, but my intuition was right several times before, so it couldn't hurt to ask. Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's rewritten policy without any consensus/discussion to reinforce his objection at my FAC. And piling on with any objection. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this, and I am also uncertain. I will do more research.—Kww(talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Btw, in response to my defense of the limited close paraphrasing, he posted this remark about what's acceptable or not, and proceeded to revise the policy again to substantiate it. Dan56 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this recent effort to draw attention more to me rather than his defense of the policy rewrite may suggest something personal too, as if their actual agenda is spilling over. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56's repeated baseless accusations, like this one, constitute a personal attack. I see that you are an admin, so can you please advise Dan56 against this type of ongoing attack on my reputation? If he thinks I am a sock, then you should advise him to take it up at SPI, not to go around everywhere I edit and attempt to convince people I am a sock. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." All I did was oppose him at FAC, as two other editors have, and now he is following me everywhere and telling everyone that I am a stalker. This is a very serious accusation, and I ask to be treated as the guideline suggests. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reference to a past FAC where FlowRidian pretended to critically review the article (and which was later referred to by Harmelodix in the RfC he created against me) may suggest something. Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests that I looked into your illustrious history of close paraphrasing and found lots of juicy examples of obviously intentional plagiarisms. BTW, you followed me to that thread to accuse me of being a sock, which I contend is a personal attack. Is BananaLanguage also a sock? How about Froglich, Robert McClenon, and Middle 8? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rib...bit? <Huh? Wah? Who disturbs my slumber?>--Froglich (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were just talking about how well Dan56 treats people who oppose him at FAC. He didn't happen to accuse you of anything ... like having an ulterior motive or socking? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about any of the above accusations but FYI, this has spilled over to AN/I; perhaps the similarity or lack thereof between the behavior I noted in my last 2 comments and Jazzerino's will be informative; perhaps not. I note evidence that Rationalobserver is not new here, and IMO, disruptive.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, Bishonen. My suspicions were raised by other signs, as I stated at the start of this section. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research assistance available

The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested input on block

Hey there. So, I know there's plenty of short term vandals who I block without much of an explanation, but here, we've got a 6 month editor you've blocked with very little explanation. (Or if there's explanation, I can't find it.) If he deserves it, fine, but you can at least do a little better job explaining your train of thought, you know? If nothing else, it helps other admin with what are essentially more or less unblock requests. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sergecross73. At the moment, from the perspective of an admin reviewing the unblock request, it's hard to know where to begin. Could you put some diffs together? PhilKnight (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Historicity of Jesus

Delete and salt the article.

It's hard to tell if you were being serious or not. Do you really think that's the best solution? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I think it's a topic that our structure prevents us from ever having a policy-compliant article on. It will simply be a festering sore forever, since our normal methods for dealing with source bias will always be circumvented by the large number of editors that view any questioning of the sources as being an attack on Christianity. Compare this thing with Haile Selassie, where the relatively small number of Rastafarian editors don't present a problem, but no one accuses the rest of us as possessing some kind of evil bias against Rastafarians just because we wouldn't tend to take their claims about Haile Selassie at face value.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a hasty generalization leading to throwing out the WP:BABY. We know there are far more Christians, so comparing them to Rastas doesn't work. We would expect more problems on Christian-related articles due to the numbers alone. Further, I can't see how an analogy between the historicity of Christ and Selassie could work. We know Selassie existed and we can prove it using documentary evidence. I think the topic of JC's historicity is valid, but what we should do is collect data about where the problems arise and directly address it. For example, I've previously stated that such a controversial article should have a 1RR imposed upon it to stop the edit wars. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's that sheer numerical force that renders the article beyond repair. Too many people trying to bias it in one direction, too much social pressure against the few that try to resist. I agree that we don't know whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. He probably did, but we don't know. I don't think we can ever get the article to say that.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clear things up

Hi, i just want to clear things up, i am not a sockpuppet hand on heart I'm not when i was recreating the, articles i was unaware they had been deleted before and just thought they had yet to be created, so i created them had I of known what had happened i wouldn't of just created them i would of took the proper action by mentioning it at ADF or whatever its called, i hope you believe me. I understand the seriousness of sockpuppetry and understand your concern but i repeat i am not a sockpuppet just someone who is very OCD and enthusiastic about the UFC. I have had a poor past on Wikipedia stupidly choosing to be a genre warrior that lead to many a block until the point came where i made the discussion to give myself a genre block to avoid my own demise. I have been editing UFC articles for months but have recently done so more in the absence of genres. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke

Did you not get a message up saying a page with this title has previously been deleted? 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: Hi, no because the pages were never deleted just redirected to a page like this 2012 in UFC Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were deleted, then a redirect was placed on top of them, 5 albert square and Lukejordan02. When that is done, a subsequent editor doesn't get the warning message.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats right, but i didnt know that at the time as i never viewed the history of the page and just went straight to the edit button. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Never knew that before. Learn something new here everyday lol 5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: Do you still think I'm a sock? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Hi. In no way denying that there is bias in many articles. To take an example, I just stumbled across Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles and it's the mother of all biased articles. Far from what the title says it should be, it's just an apologist attempt to claim historical reliability where none exists. I'm sure you're busy, both with our small discussions not to mention with work and life, but if you have the time to swing by the article at some point it would no doubt be helpful. I've started trying to edit out at least the worst bias, but it's a quite enormous task.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RationalObserver

Have you had a chance to look further into this? Another editor brought up a similar suggestion at their talk page, considering their general activity at WP: "...difficult to believe you're a new user. For one thing, you have jumped feet first into hotspot areas, where you seem set on being as inflammatory as possible. You have 50% edits to Wikipedia space, 30% to Wikipedia talk, and 3.4% to article space..." Dan56 (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, he offered this shallow support of an FAC based on prose, yet did not impose an impossible standard of paraphrasing and copyright rules as he had at my FAC, not reviewing and finding instances of verbatim text in the article they're supporting, such as "pleaded not guilty to the charge on the grounds of self-defence" (ref.77), "a lack of evidence" (ref.78), "Webster's parole was revoked" (ref.76), "undertake work release" (ref.74), and "her mother, who was told that responsible adults would be attending the party" (ref.16). Considering his objections at my FAC, these actionable issues would have been nitpicked to death by him but weren't. All things considered, I feel stronger about the possibility that he applied such a double standard to my article (his first review of an article) because of some hidden agenda, likely because of the suspicions I raised above. Dan56 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just volunteered to clerk for this case, so I am getting up to speed. There is a bit of discussion about your status. Would it be OK if I added you as a party? I haven't fully investigated whether you have an option, but rather than look into it, I thought i would ask you first. For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick (Talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, I agree that I don't have the right to refuse. If people come to the consensus that I should be a party, go ahead and add me.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your original statement, made when you were not a named party, ends up on the case talk page, rather than the evidence page. Given the change in status, I copied the statement to the evidence page. I note that it is written in the context of not being a named party; feel free to edit (with strikeout and underline) or add supplementary points. The evidence phase technically closes tomorrow, but I won't hold you to that. It you do feel the need to made changes/addition and will do so after 13 November, please give me a heads up so I can monitor, and make announcements if necessary.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Kww:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

updates on RationalObserver?

I know it's been a while since I last posted about this, but I was wondering if there are any updates or if you'd found anything more than what I posted about already at your talk page, including at my most recent message above? Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least tell me if you plan on looking into any of it since you said before you'd do more research. Dan56 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motivated edits by User talk:Armaan.haider

Hi! I have noted that User talk:Armaan.haider to be repeatedly making edits which appear to be motivated. I have noted from users talk page that in past you and another user had warned him to restrain from such practice else his edit privilege would be blocked.

He has been repeatedly removing contents that are critical to article Happy New Year (2014 film) without providing any valid reason. I think it is high time that the edit priviledges of user is blocked.Vinod (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaan.haider. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't all Allmusic.com be used for Genres?

Kevin, can't allmusic.com be used for Genres if there isn't a more reliable source? The reason I'm asking is because the user Synthwave.94 persistently removed allmusic.com as a source which I provided for the Genres Synthpop, New-wave at Baltimora's page, and claimed that it's not reliable. I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid doesn't have allmusic.com included in the table as being unreliable for Genres, just says avoid allmusic if there is a better source. Synthwave.94 has provided an offline source that supposedly supports the Italo-disco as a Genre but has not provided evidence in the discussion I had with him/her that his/her offline source says that Baltimora was Italo-disco only and not Synthpop, New-wave. Take a look please if you have the time, because in my honest opinion sourced Genres should not be removed unless all other sources claim that this particular band/project is only this Genre.--Harout72 (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by User:Synthwave.94

The user User:Synthwave.94 keeps removing sourced Genres from the Infoboxes of both from Den Harrow and Baltimora claiming that the sources talk about one song only, therefore, it isn't enough for that Genre to be included. The user has so far failed to back up his/her removals with such policies that restrict Genres from being included, if sources provided speak of one song only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete evidence of fake sources

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources.
Message added 23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I request Kww again to acknowledge whether the administrator is seeing my edits. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the extent of possible comment on Technophant's offending behaviours on general talk pages

Kww I am not a new editor but have had little background in Wikipedia protocols related to errant editor practice. As a background I have been somewhat justly considered to have been POV pushing regarding a desire to give qualification to the use of "jihadist" on the ISIL page. Technophant launched a campaign against me that, with one element examined, was described in terms of an invitation to a lynching. Since that time, and having given no previous attention to the topic, it seems to me that s/he has made a concerted attempt to derail or otherwise circumvent the discussion as I think demonstrated at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. In hope that you understand relevant issues in the guidelines I'd appreciate any relevant intervention/advice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant block

I'm quite confused by the Technophant block. As far as I understand it, IP 71.40.3.92 makes this edit at 20:57, 9 November 2014, you indef-block Technophant at 02:36, 10 November 2014, and you block the IP at 03:19, 10 November 2014. Did something else play into the situation? I don't see why we need to conclude that this IP is Technophant, and since WP:SOCK permits non-disruptive logged-out editing, I don't see why it would be a problem even if it is he, not to mention not seeing why such an infraction would warrant an indefinite block. Am I missing something perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edit, I believe, was evading a short 24-hour topic ban placed by another admin. And I'm pretty sure Technophant had logged out on this IP in a similar manner before. That said, I think the duration on the block was a bit overkill, especially considering KWW's prior involvement with this editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not overkill: Technophant has demonstrated that he will sockpuppet to evade any restrictions placed on him. There's no reason to believe that his misbehaviour will ever stop.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more reasonable interpretation is that Technophant has demonstrated poor judgement and ineptitude at socking. I'd like to think there's a difference between article editors who occasionally sock/troll and socks/trolls who occasionally edit articles. I also hope that you'll step away from this user in the future: indeffing the same user three times in a row is poor form at best. Also, you needn't worry about me interfering anymore. I'm done there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Occasional" socking and "inept" socking are still inexcusable. The only real issue here is that Technophant was unblocked when there was no reason to believe that this behaviour wouldn't repeat itself. If there was some shred of doubt left, I would think that this latest round has destroyed it.—Kww(talk)

In a wider context, unless forced into a position by admin, I have seen no evidence that Technophant will to any extent be held accountable for actions. Enquiries and questions are routinely ignored or deflected. I believe that the socking should be viewed in contexts such as this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text deleted from lede without consensus

The part "It primary used as a complementary alternative medicine."[104] was added to the lede by me on 29 September 2014. Now two months later on 12 November 2014 the improved sentence was deleted along with other text. "It is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine."[105] The edit summary was pointy and he thought because all the text was new he can delete it then argue it has no consensus. He has a pattern of deleting text from the TCM page without gaining consensus.[106] The sentence is in the body "It is primary used as a complementary alternative medicine.[1]" See Traditional Chinese medicine#Philosophical background. There was no logical reason to deleted the sentence from the lede. He thought because an IP recently added all the text to the lede he could just delete all the text and force editors to discuss it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede before my edits said: "Other traditional Chinese medical practices remain common in mainland China, in Taiwan, and among overseas Chinese. It is primarily used as a complementary alternative medicine. It has become popular in other countries.". The poor grammar is clearly pointed out in my following edits:

1) "What "other traditional Chinese medical practices" exactly?"[107]

2) "What "it"? The previous sentence is referring to some undefined "other" TCM practices."[108]. The first sentence is about "other traditional Chinese medical practices" (plural), whereas the second sentence says "It is..." (singular)

3)"What has become popular in other countries?"[109]. The same problem as with previous one. Where is this "It has become popular..." pertaining to?

Poor grammar indeed. As I clearly said in my edit summary: "not sure what the edits mean". E.g. I didn't manage to find out what these "other TCM practices" are on the basis of the source. QuackGuru, you took the honor of improving the text, right?[110] So perhaps you could use your energy to correct the errors you made instead?

What comes to the other allegations you made, please do provide detailed diffs. As you know, one should always present tangible proof. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the text without trying to improve it. I clarified the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Driftchambers

Hello Kww,

it's been quite a few months since our last communication and i'd like to re-open a discussion with yourself. I've already sent a message to Nick (and then read your having told myself to not put messages elsewhere, so apologies for that, as it was unintentional from me to have gone against your instructon). In the message to Nick i mentioned i have a page with the password upon it, but that is only a part of the info on the page, and i don't know at this time which part is the actual password, so i'm anticipating if i get to go through every possible i'll eventually find the password. If you know of any trusted person who could take the info i have and use it to regain access it would save me time. I'll just proceed to make the repeat attempts until i find the password, then i'll re-message, unless you begin a discussion again here. Again, apologies for the Nick message.146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

would you, or some other editor (if your too busy or otherwise) like an email address from myself for communication? It might be easier for myself to communicate via email, instead of on talk pages. 146.90.8.128 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update?

Could you at least tell me if you plan on looking into any of it since you said before you'd do more research on RationalObserver? Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dan56, I owe you a personal apology. Whenever I try to look into this, waves of depression and disgust strike. I will make an effort this weekend to clean out MariaJaydHicky one more time, as I see upwards of three accounts that are likely her. —Kww(talk) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Kim discography

An editor on this page keeps adding a RIAA cert that does not come from the RIAA website itself which is what wikipedia says should be the only source.

User talk:Mitrabarun

Hey--don't know if you noticed or want to do anything, but he put up a new RfUB. I'm spectating, because I really don't want to get sucked in again. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 18:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being kind to disruptive editors

I hear you but the situation is more nuanced. Editors aren't disruptive or good faith; they have the potential to be both, depending on how they are treated and what situation they put themselves in. Being kind to a disruptive editor can help them express their good faith side and minimize the disruption. On the other hand, being kind to somebody who continues a jerk will usually create a strong consensus to get rid of them. Being kind is a win-win. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody

24.112.187.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back. You took care of the last block and are familiar with his editing habits. Maybe 6 months or a year this time? Them From Space 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.still-christina.com/german/awads.htm

[2] ttp://calendar.bellinghamherald.com/dallas_tx/events/show/369975524-winstons-presents-one-night-with-mya-with-love-ep-release-party

[3] ttp://www.rapbasement.com/lil-kim/lil-kim-hosts-award-show-for-l-a-foster-children-hits-stage-with-dmx.html

[1]

[2]

[3]