User talk:Kww/03122012

Merkey at it again

Trying to avoid a drama fest by telling a couple of hard nosed admins instead of going to the AN/I snake pit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%E1%8E%A4%E1%8F%92%E1%8F%95%E1%8E%BE_%E1%8E%A0%E1%8F%82

Do with it as you will. SadFatter (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello :), please help reach consensus by weighing in your opinion here. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Proof of Case

I'm just wondering where the discussion took place that the user is a sock puppet? I've suspected this for a while, but I could never put a user on it. The user had been causing problems for weeks with me, even suspecting ME for sock puppetry. :/ Thanks, ℥^nding·start 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it went on so long. Once I looked at it, it was obvious. There hasn't been a discussion. Since I was convinced, I'm allowed to block. If he requests unblocking, a checkuser will be run before granting any unblocks.—Kww(talk) 18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It's fine, I'm just glad the user is FINALLY blocked. I'm looking at the original investigations, and you're right, it IS so obvious. That user would not stop with the bubbling under nonsense. ℥^nding·start 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography again

Kevin, I know you mentioned that you have a full time job now and your response time is slow, but if you have time please see the edits of user 1111tomica at Jeniffer Lopez discography. This user has made around some 30 edits within two days, which is fine. But making incorrect changes such as changing the first parts of the citations in the singles table from New Zealand's positions for Jennifer Lopez to NZ ALBUMS (see the entire change here), or supporting all Swiss certifications with 2007 certifications and claiming I explained it, I'm totally right here ! is not a behaviour of someone who likes to work with wiki community. Also, please note that the user has removed all those sources that were placed in the singles boxes for "I'm Into You" and "On the Floor", those positions cannot be found in the sources provided. There are other incorrect changes as Work=German Albums Chart (which should be Media Control), see all other similar changes. Unacceptable behaviour overall.--Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Wonda

Hi Kevin, I had included citations this time. Is that not suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarie9 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Charlie

Since blocks does not work with him, could you please protect the pages edited by 86.181.212.145 (talk · contribs). Thank you in advice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please block 86.161.36.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), thanks Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sinead O'Connor

Hello. I've been trying to put the Singlechart template in "Nothing Compares 2 U" article, but it just won't let me to. The link becomes broken. I guess it has something to do with Sinead O'Connor's name and symbols used in it. I don't know how to write it correctly, so I'm asking for help. — Cannot (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Wonda

There is a wealth of information about this individual and I've been trying to update it as appropriately as possible. What can you recommend? Is there any way I can run a revised version with you without being blocked from editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarie9 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dewan?

Can you take a look at Areapeaslol (talk · contribs)? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Routerone

Would you please take a look at the most recent discussion at User talk:Routerone#Concern. It appears to me he has broken his zero revert agreement - and his edit summary "(cleanup, tidy and adjust)" is a bit misleading - adjust seems to mean delete some material and change other material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is an indefinite block over this really appropriate? Tweaks to the lede, especially the opening sentence, have been far from rare for this article; any change at all could be construed as a "revert". ...comments? ~BFizz 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It was borderline, but it was made clear to Routerone that there was no tolerance or fudging permitted. Even a revert of blatant vandalism would have resulted in him being blocked. In this case, he removed material from the lead that he had objected to and reverted in the past. It technically met the definition and I felt the spirit of it did as well.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely given his behavior in the past. I think it was inevitable. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hot100brasil

Do you think its time to blacklist this url completely? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an edit filter that watches for it, so the links don't last long. I keep arguing with myself as to whether it's better to blacklist it. Maybe refusing to save the edit will just result in people posting the figures without any clue as to where they came from.—Kww(talk) 01:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dewan and Tomara dynasty

I hit upon Tomara dynasty via an unrelated route (searching for articles using a specific unreliable source), but spotted the PP and then the SPI etc. I've done a fair amount of quick cleaning but am off to bed. I would imagine that you have this article watchlisted, in which case you may wish to consult with SpacemanSpiff regarding what it is I am likely to do to it! Although SS has no information regarding my intent on this article, they are aware of the work that I have done on various caste/dynasty/clan articles. There will probably be a quite significant pruning, then rewrites/rephrases etc and it will happen in bursts. Obviously, if you have a problem with this then please do let me know. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

V7 sport/Iqinn blocks

No, I am not here to question your blocks. Thought I'd get that right out of the way, they are completely solid blocks of two users who clearly have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My only concern is that one or the other of them might be able to convince an admin to consider unblocking them. For the moment I have advised them both to consider WP:OFFER. If that doesn't fly I definitely think the next step is ANI to propose an interaction and topic ban of at least a year but preferably indefinite with no appeals for the first year and not more than once every six months thereafter. Neither user is helping in the area they choose to edit, and they obviously cannot work around each other. For the moment I think we can wait and see what they do next, but thought I'd put a bug in your ear about this as it seems you've tangled with these two before. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (song)

Kevin, a user is insisting on adding the Japanese Oricon physical CD sales chart in the above article. However, I reverted his/her addition since it is a component chart of the Japan Hot 100, along with the radio airplay and the SoundScan Japan charts. Can you please check if I did the right thing? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

About your recent revert of my revert

You undid my revert of Fleet Command's removal of red links from the template. [1] with the message "addition of non-navigational links to navigation template". Have you seen the discussion on the talk page? The red link guideline page states: Red links are generally not ... linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc. These red links are thus valid, since these red links are in fact part of a series. Listing someone's books in those two bestselling series of his, and not listing all of them, is not a better alternative than this. Dream Focus 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado page

Hello! I was wondering if you could semi-protect the Nelly Furtado page, because just recently a prankster altered her whole biography, changing her from a "Canadian of portuguese descent" to an "Indian who came from New Mumbai." He changed the instruments that she plays, i.e, from "guitar, keyboards, ukelele and trombone" to "sitar, harmonium and what-not"! I had a tough time clearing that mess up. I would have semi-protected the page if I knew how to, the fact is that I don't.....so please help.....Manas justice (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page...Manas justice (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sock puppetry

Hi Kww. I used to be a consistant contributor to wiki untill I left wiki 2 years back. The recent edits made under IP 69.118.40.76 and 129.42.208.174, mistaken to be sock puppetry by another user and reverted by you were actually made by me. After having authored more than a dozen FA's (some of which I touched recently) I left wiki, unable to contribute for both personal reasons and the kind of sock puppetry you face on wiki everyday. So, I dont blame you for the reverts. I was too lazy to log in. I do visit wiki once every six months or so if I feel I have found a really good source and some new information, though I realize I should have logged in. Please do revert your reverts and then lock up the articles if you feel there are socks trolling those articles. However, if you prefer not to revert to my edits (in articles Asaga, Western Ganga Dynasty, Political history of medieval Karnataka, Rashtrakuta literature and the template within that article, and Kannada) I will not bother to make an issue. I visit only ocassionally and really dont want to get into debates. You may retain the template I deleted from two of those articles, though I think they only create more confusion. All the best on wiki.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dale Brown: What should we do next?

So, what is the next course of action? Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Song article violations. Thank you.v/r - TP 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Boomerang

Could you take care of 86.173.57.177 (talk · contribs) Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Truefact

Thanks for spotting the sockmaster for Truefact1979, whom you have recently blocked and tagged. The SPI has not yet been archived - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357#Comments_by_other_users - but myself & MatthewVanitas has added a couple of notes about quacking IPs. Since the AN3 blocking admin has indicated that they are currently busy, is there any chance that you could take a quick look? It would seem that you may in any event have some background knowledge regarding editing styles etc. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Billboard

The other ones don't have either... but I'll transcribe the ones from the original version at the PT wiki (I only didn't do it earlier because it envolves translating the template!). igordebraga ≠ 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Muslim views about the Indicent of Umar at Fatimah's House

The Hashemites alone declined the oath of fidelity; and their chief, in his own house, maintained, above six months, a sullen and independent reserve; without listening to the threats of Omar, who attempted to consume with fire the habitation of the daughter of the apostle.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Fy0ho0JMc_AC&printsec=frontcover&dg=The+Decline+and+Fall+of+the+Roman+Empire+complete&hl=en&ei=JPisTKvnEYGucMyateYN&sa=X&oi=book_reult&ct=result&fresnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Add this to the Omar at Fatimah's House.

Pixie Lott

Please quit shoving singlechart templates down my throat. Just because I'm not in accordance with them does not necessarily mean my edits are disruptive. Last time I checked, they're not mandatory, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the formatting I'm using, which has been on Wikipedia for ages. In fact, I've seen single articles by thousands of artists which still use the manual formatting—why won't you go change those too? SnapSnap 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

requested help but got....??

I asked for help and advice on fixing category references on Toluca Lake's famous celebrity residents. But rather than assisting, you followed every entry I was making and deleted them before I had a chance to make the needed corrections. Wouldn't it have been more polite to have answered my call for assistance than to make me do it all over again? WikiBob47 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential Sockpuppet of Pesf

Hi there, I've been monitoring this user User talk:92.24.197.105 and it seems that they are acting in the exact same manner to the User you blocked Madiera1234. They are removing large chunks of information on the same articles as that of the named sockpuppet. I would be grateful if you could have a look into this. Cheers. Virus101 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, there is a User talk:92.29.24.100 who is again following very similar behaviour to Pesf by removing big chunks of sourced information and pretending to address a tiny matter. Could you perhaps look into this? Thanks again mate. Virus101 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesf again, but with maybe a different view

Some thoughts about Pesf. While I'll be the first to congratulate everyone blocking Pesf socks, as Pesf had made quite disruptive edits ruining the work of many editors, (and by the way, they may also be on 92.24.206.213, 92.24.203.92), the edits sometime really make sense. here for example I would have done the same. The download chart seems valid, and the cleanup tag was given without stating a reason, and I don't personally see what to clean up. here he removed an unsourced peak. If you look at the history, it was sourced to WP:BADCHARTS and the only reason I didn't remove it myself was that I have a personal agreement with the editor who added it to let him know on his talk page rather than remove - otherwise I would have definitely removed a WP:BADCHARTS listing. here of course I totally agree - I believe this is one type of disruptive editing that got him blocked, introducing unsourced sales figures. Maybe a bit of caution with the reverts is appropriate? Not that I haven't in the past reverted the entirety of a blocked editor's edits just to be on the safe side. So maybe I'm not sure what I am saying but just felt it needed to be said. Sorry to waste your time with my deliberations. On the practical side, maybe semi-protection is due? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments

Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.

Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.

Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. –xeno^talk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck protection

Hi, Kww. Can I persuade you that semiprotecting Scrooge McDuck for a year is a bit of an overreaction? The "FPS Kyle" vandalism -- whatever it means -- is rather low volume and quite easy to keep up with with normal editing procedures. Semi-protection, on the other hand, prohibits all non-registered users from editing the article, just to stop one person. I think that's too steep a price to pay for a very small added convenience. Powers ^T 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article has spent half of this year semi-protected due to this kind of vandalism, and many of the IP edits that have been made are vandalism, I don't really think it's overdoing it. I could trim it to 6 months if you feel extremely strongly about it.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I do feel strongly about it, though I don't know if I'd say "extreme". Nonetheless, I'd have made the same request if you'd semi-protected it for six months as well. This kind of low-volume vandalism is just not a good reason to shut out non-registered users. Powers ^T 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As six months is still excessive, I have requested unprotection at WP:RPP#Current requests for unprotection. Powers ^T 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Confusion?

It's happened on one of your RfAs, so I didn't want that happening again, that's all. I'm strange and weird :) Kwsn (Ni!) 01:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ethiopia and other protection requests

Just IP hopping from somebody who uses Digicel Jamaica. I thought in a rangeblock because the IPS start with "69.160.xx.xxx", but also there are some with "184.70.xx.xxx". Also, those are not the only pages affected, there are more but not edited in days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you block 86.161.35.65 (talk · contribs) and protect its target? Thank you in advice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one 86.180.218.20 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tina Turner photos

You are maybe interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:TinaTurner2008.JPG. Your caution with the use of this very old uploads in the article was correct, that user is a copyvio uploader and his whole story have been made up out of whole cloth. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pesf

Hello there Kww, Pesf is vandalising the same articles again using this account User talk:2.98.253.173. They are removing large chunks of sourced charting information from Take That singles and editing Boyzone albums inappropriately. I also have reason to suspect that this account, User talk:92.29.28.223 has been used as well as the contributions mimic the same actions as Pesf and his other sock puppets. Sorry to trouble you but they continue to vandalise the work of users and act in an aggressive manner when approached. If you could look into this I would be very grateful indeed, and perhaps as Munhandes has suggested a semi protect to be imposed on the articles that are being constantly attacked? Many thanks for your time. Yids2010 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your response

I notice that you haven't responded to my criticisms on your CU page. Am I to understand that you have elected not to communicate?

In particular, I do consider you barred from any administrative action with regards to me or my accounts. That includes any advanced permissions you may ever receive. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've engaged all points that you have made. I am not barred from any administrative actions relative to you at any time. I don't cross the threshold of WP:INVOLVED in dealing with you. WP:INVOLVED does not limit admins from taking multiple actions against one account. "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." I don't think there is any reasonable perception that I am biased against you (or for you, for that matter). I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made multiple administrative actions that were incorrect with regards to me. That is why you are barred from further action. But since we're discussing this - you seem to have had no problem with NW issuing an out-of-policy ultimatim to a fellow admin, requiring consent and action as a condition for unblocking. Do you still agree that an admin may issue such an ultimatim without authorizations in policy? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First things first: please stop describing me as being "barred" from taking actions against you in the future unless you can get some sort of consensus to that effect. It certainly isn't a reasonable reading of WP:INVOLVED. If NW had blocked Gimmetrow, your argument would apply. NW did not block the Gimmetrow account. NW blocked the Gimmetoo account when he believed there was a substantial risk that it was being used to impersonate an admin. Given that it was the second time the Gimmetoo account had been involved in an edit war in a short period of time, he was not the only admin concerned that Gimmetoo was, in fact, a skilled impersonator. Gimmetrow made no effort to take any action to alleviate NW's fears. Gimmetrow refused to respond to e-mails requesting confirmation of his relationship to Gimmetoo. Gimmetrow refused to use his acknowledged alter, Gimmebot, to alleviate anyone's concerns. Gimmetrow refused to do anything about the situation, and, in doing so, caused most of his own problems. Did I make a mistake by not seeing that the autoblock had been forged? Yes, I did. Good-faith mistakes don't make someone incapable of action in the future.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NW blocked without prior contact or discussion, then removed email and talk. You supported this. Show me the policy that authorizes this? Show me the policy that authorizes any admin to require another user log in and perform actions from a specific account? If you cannot grasp why that's inappropriate behavior, then you have no business having access to privileged information. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I still support it. NW wasn't wrong. As for policies, I think WP:BURO and WP:IAR cover the extremely unusual circumstance of an account claiming to be an admin's alternate while the admin refused to acknowledge the existence of the account. No reasonable person would expect Wikipedia to have policies and procedures in place for a circumstance that should never have occurred. I really am sorry that you don't seem to understand your role in causing this situation to escalate.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made a claim that "the admin refused to acknowledge the existence of the account". Demonstrate that or retract it. I expect either response ASAP.

Since you can only claim IAR to ignore other policies, then you do formally support admins making an out-of-policy ultimatim?

You have still not adequately responded to the first serious event - you used admin tools to block a user who was removing false information from a BLP, and you did not remove the information yourself; hence you used administrative tools to support the retention of a WP:BLP violation. (You also knew the user in question was an admin.)

Once you have made such an egregious error - and have been unable to admit your error - it is quite reasonable to view any later blocks (and unblock declines) as an attempt to validate an inapproprate administrative action. You then later denied an unblock, supported the removal of talk page and email access, and then filed an SPI that was quite inappropriate in many ways. And since you brought up edit-warring, let's not forget you have been involved in disruptive edit-warring a few times yourself. According to your argument, isn't that grounds to suspect your account is compromised? How would you expect an admin to handle your account? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The request can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=378928321#obstruction_of_ref_clean-up : note my edit at 21:17, the follow up from Atama at 21:21, and your own block log. I can't prove a negative: if you want to claim that Gimmetrow acknowledged the account, show me an edit from Gimmetrow acknowledging that Gimmetoo is an alternate account. It is also far from an "egregious" error to view an edit war over whether Brenda Song won a trivial award or was only nominated for it as not being covered by WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the latter, it was verifiably false information, easily checked via websearches. Had no place in the article. You retained verifiably false information, and used administrator tools against another administrator to do so. At no point did you *ask* anything, which is part of the pattern you need to recognize and change. On the former, you have failed to demonstrate, and you have not retracted. Your failure to do so could be construed as disruptive and a violation of administrator conduct guidelines, which could be viewed as another basis for suspecting something amiss with your account. You have also failed to respond to my latter question. See how much nicer it is to be given opportunities to discuss and respond, rather than the "block first and issue an ultimatim" approach? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

However, you were adding it as unsourced information. If you want to argue that the other editor was using poor sources, certainly your use of no sources at all was equally bad? And I don't know how to characterize "Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation." as anything but "asking". In a fairly polite fashion, too.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The nomination was sourced as I recall. Anyone with basic web competence should have been able to do a websearch and find out who actually won. And I said that. Did you do a websearch? Did you consider asking for a source at any point, either before or after the block? Did you remove the false information after the block? As for the latter - can you see why the request might or might not get answered? Did anyone bother to wait for a reply? So how is that a "refusal"? Now, can you cite the policy which authorizes blocking someone for not logging in to another account when allegedly politely requested to do so? Is there any requirement to do so? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The winning of the award was also sourced. It's pretty reasonable to assume that given a source for a nomination and a source for a win, the winning can be seen as occurring after the nomination, and superceding the original source. That's the normal order of such things. Did you ever provide any reason to doubt the other editor's source? Did you ever provide a link to a claim by someone else to have won? Or did you simply edit-war the change hoping that the IP would eventually give up? As for the other issue, can you understand why an account impersonating an admin could be a problem? Can you cite a policy which justifies allowing accounts that claim to be alternate accounts of admins to continue to edit when the admin account hasn't acknowledged them after repeated requests? Can you see that other editors' suspicions were reasonably aroused by a combination that lack of confirmation?—Kww(talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The win was not sourced, and yes I explained why. That should have been the end of it. Have you bothered to answer my questions? No, I don't think so. You got a problem, you ask about it. I'm here asking you. Now respond. And to carry on the thought experiment - since you have failed to respond to my satisfaction despite repeated requests, I have reason to suspect your account is compromised. As such, persuant to the thought experiment, you are now blocked, and as a condition for unblock you are required do contact me by email to show that you are the original person in command of your account. Again, this is a thought experiment - how do you respond to that? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.scholastic.com/ink_splot_26/2009/06/brenda-song-life-sure-is-sweet-.html contains an interview with the sentence "You have received the Asian Excellence Award." That's not the greatest and most explicit source I've seen, but it is certainly a source. Worthy of a discussion, at the very least.

As for your question about ultimatums: you are basically phrasing it as a variation of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Describing NW's edits as having delivered an "out-of-policy ultimatum to an admin" is misleading. He blocked an account he suspected of impersonation, and indicated how the account that he suspected of being impersonated could deal with it. I've explained why I thought that was justified. NW revoked your talk page access after two successive denials of your unblock requests by two different admins, and gave you explicit permission to unblock the account yourself. Should you block me in the case you described, I would use {{unblock}} explaining that your request was based on an invalid motive. In the remote chance that my unblock was denied, I would happily deal with the unblock mail list if I had to. None of the steps you were requested to take would have violated your privacy in any fashion.

I've been extraordinarily responsive in this discussion. What you seem to be having difficulty accepting is that you placed every admin dealing with your case in a very difficult position. You didn't take any of the trivial steps it would have taken to resolve the situation. You logged in to the account that you received mail from as Gimmetrow. We know that because you received my messages. You could have posted that text at Commons (where you were still talking). You could have used a Hotmail account to reply if you didn't want to reveal your normal e-mail address to me. Hell, you could have just mentioned the timestamp of the e-mail in the discussion. Instead, you chose to fight a battle that didn't need to be fought at all, apparently on the principle that your account should have been above suspicion despite suspicious behaviour.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry kww, but you haven't understood the implications of the thought experiment. In this thought experiment, you were blocked after your suspicious editing provided grounds to suspect your account was compromised. You were given clear directions by an admin about the process you needed to take to become unblocked. You have not taken that process. Presumably you would agree that your not taking the process outlined is completely and entirely your fault? Rather, you have continued to edit while blocked, which is block-evasion and sockpuppetry. Therefore, in the thought experiment, you are now blocked indefinitely and your talk page and email access on wiki is revoked. You can still email me, with the email address you would have if you are in control of the email account associated with this wikipedia account. Now what do you do, in this thought experiment?

"None of the steps you were requested to take would have violated your privacy in any fashion." That's a most interesting claim. How do YOU know that? If you cannot even think of a situation where your claim is false, you have at least a failure of imagination, and consequently you have a fundamental blind spot in your approach to this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll grant that "none" was an overstatement. How about "there were options that would not have compromised your privacy". Using your Gimmebot account, for example, which has been confirmed, and you still use. Creating a throwaway Hotmail account to reply to me. Mentioning the contents of one of my e-mail messages in one of your unblocks or on commons. There were numerous ways to respond, and you chose not to.

If you could read e-mail sent to Gimmetrow, that means that whatever horrible, keystroke logging dungeon that left you unable to log in to your Gimmetrow Wikipedia account did not apply to your e-mail account. It was available for you to use. You refused to do so, apparently for the same reasons that plague you today: you view the affront of the block as so severe that it appears to have made you angry, and you then didn't deal with it appropriately.

Your thought experiment has very little relationship to what happened to you, by the way. Your request in your thought experiment would probably be seen as unreasonable, and my unblock would be granted. This is quite different from yours, where two separate admins denied your unblock. I said I would deal with the unblock mailing list, which is also a reasonable response, and not sockpuppeting in any fashion. The one detail that you are right on is that no admin can set a precise, enforceable action: if admin X sets a condition but you can persuade admin Y to reverse the block, that's fine. You had that open to you as well. Even if you felt NuclearWarfare was completely off-base (despite a general opinion that his action was at least reasonable, even if we wouldn't have done it ourselves), you had options. Instead, you just kept making unblock requests with "no policy basis for block" until your talk page access was revoked. Despite other's encouragement, you wouldn't use the Gimmebot account, citing a slavish adherence to policy about bot accounts. You wouldn't deal with e-mail. One thing that you refused to accept (and apparently still refuse to accept) is that there was no policy-based argument that Gimmetoo could have made that would have resulted in a consensus to overturn NW's block. Evidence had been requested, and your refusal to provide any or to explain why you weren't providing any wasn't being accepted. As I've said, everyone was in an awkward situation. You weren't helping yourself or anyone else by not cooperating.—Kww(talk) 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence has been requested of you, and you have failed to provide any or to explain why you aren't providing any. (Of course, your ability to "provide evidence" is somewhat limited, because you have no talk page or email access.) Using the unblock list would have violated privacy, so that's not an option if privacy matters to you. Discussing with another admin is not an option for you either, because your email access has been blocked; you are only able to email admins that have previously emailed you - which is me. Since I have noted your suspicious and disruptive editing, there is a good faith basis for suspecting your account is compromised, and another admin agrees. I have noted that I have edited with you before and so have private information to use to confirm you are still you, so the block is viewed as not reviewable by other admins. Since you continued editing while blocked, there is now a ban discussion concerning you to which you are unable to reply without socking more.. Things are not looking good for you in this thought experiment. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I have e-mail access, I just don't have access to the button. No one deprived you of talk page access or access to the e-mail button until you had made two denied unblock requests, which you knew you were risking when your second unblock request was unresponsive and an exact copy of your original unblock request. Access to the unblock request and arbcom mailing lists is available to all, and cannot be blocked by an admin. If people feel like a block is truly unreasonable, they have options. It's up to them to take them.—Kww(talk) 12:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not have email access through Wikipedia, so you cannot email anyone whose email address you don't know. Now, to correct some of your errors. I made one unblock request, just as you have done. The unblock request was questioning the policy basis for the block - much as you have done. It was denied - just as yours was - for failing to perform the actions outlined by the admin. Then NW immediately removed talk page access. (Yours was removed for more than this.) At that point NW was required to demonrate the policy basis for the block (and talk page and email removal following a single unblock request). Since NW did not do that, NW had had a COI with regard to any further administrative action. NW then used his position as a SPI clerk to "approve" an SPI regvarding the account. There were other clerks; there was no need for NW to do that. It was an error for him to do that when the account had clearly questioned his administrative basis. (Keep in mind what happened to NW after that.) Using the unblock list is tantamount to outing; that's not really an option if you care about privacy. That is probably a point where this analogy fails, because you may not care about outing, but I do, and I doubt there is any policy basis to require editors to out themselves. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you have elected not to respond, I will reiterate: As a result of your repeated inappropriate actions, you are barred henceforth from taking any administrative action (interpreted broadly, including closes and any advanced permission) with respect to me or my accounts. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

: I hit the wrong button, but in any case, you are not welcome to post on my talk page. Since you assert you are not WP:INVOLVED, then as a consequence you fully agree that I am not barred from taking any administrative action against you. You therefore do understand that, should by some misfortune you get access to CU info about me, and I become aware of it, and I find it even the slightest inappropriate, you may be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Answer: False Chart Reference

Sorry, wasn't my intention. I though that the source were right because i heard Perry saying in the show at 2011 Rock in Rio that the Brazil were the only country where the song was #1. Diegoftq2 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian Nade

Lists 18 league goals in infobox. He scored eight. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Charlie

Can you block 81.159.63.33 (talk · contribs), and protect for a while Umbrella (song), and for a long-term Blue Monday (New Order song) (see logs). Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Kevin, I think MariaJaydHicky is using the IP 86.132.185.157 (talk · contribs) as a sock. The IP reverted my edit without any reason, to the version by MariaJaydHicky. Novice7 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My Profile

Is it too much to ask to not keep posting the alternative account on my profile, as it is MY profile and I don't want it on mine OK!MariaJaydHicky (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know that but don't busybody yourself on MY profile, how would you like it if I wrote something on your profile and you kept asking me to stop adding it and I thought "Allow it bruv, I'll do what I wanna do.." You'd get the ass ache so don't do it on my profile OK! MariaJaydHicky (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DrV help

Kevin, Could we get your 2 cents at [2]? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I don't think many of the DRV regulars know their way around WP:MUSIC. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesf again?

User:Loveuely, removing good material with bad, seems familiar. --Muhandes (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Record charts

Thanks for the information! I didn't knew that there were so many latin charts considered bad in wikipedia =(. I'll be more comprehensive then. --Hahc21 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Routerone

Turned out this editor was a sock puppet - see [3]. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Sorry about reverting that edit to Brooke Valentine. I thought it was sneaky vandalism, but it's always hard to tell with that. Anyway, thank you for assuming good faith and happy editing! pluma Ø 23:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

History merge

Kevin, would it be possible to histomerge User:Novice7/Sandbox2 to Most Wanted (Hilary Duff album)? Two edits were made after I started working on it in my sandbox. I hope parallel revisions are not created. Also, I came across this username Iluvselenagomez1234. I remember some Iluv(xyz) users in Wikipedia. So, do you think this user has some connection? Novice7 (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Kevin! Thank you so much!!!!! Novice7 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Charlie again

86.180.218.109 (talk · contribs). Please another block. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How Do I create a Singlechart for India?

chzz suggested I ask you on how to insert 'Indian' charts to Template:Singlechart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeicare1986 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

KWW, this user asked for help with it in the IRC live help; I helped 'em to add this one [4] (and then yes, removed the duplicate - d'oh!) and then, looking on the template/talk I saw your name, and suggested they ask you about getting "India" added as an option on Template:Singlechart - because, I imagine you'll be able to give a much better answer than I can! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The first step is to find a reliable singles chart for India that has a stable archive and meets all the requirements in WP:Record charts. If you can show me the site you want to link to, I can help with the mechanics.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to the charts: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/musicchart/6692253.cms?chartid=3&periodtype=4

Wikilink: Radio Mirchi.

The wikilink has all the information on the charts, and the archives are available in the website link provided above. (Likeicare1986 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

User:Prettybeautifulnailsalon

I was going through WP:RFU and saw the unblock request. You linked the SPI page in the block but the most recent activity on it was back in march. What linked the two accounts (feel free to email me if it is something you don't want to mention on here) Alexandria (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Alexandria (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Neptunes Discography

Hi Mr. Williams, why don't you just delete the whole Neptunes discography on here because they don't have any reliable source material, unsourced stuff has to be removed... Are you freaking kidding me? Look what you just did, you just delete a year of a hard work and resource and why because you just thought I ma go ahead at this page and clean it up and tell this idiot how to edit on this page. Well Mr. Williams , I really appreciate all the hard work you did for Wikipedia but I don't appreciate what you're doing with me and the neptunes discography for the last 5 days, I get all the rules but REALLY I mean Really, you need to come inhere and kinda vandalism the page because there's no source of it and because you can, believe me, I'm following the neptunes since 2001 and I woulda been the last person to vandalism or spread rumours about the neptunes working with people which they wouldn't. Just look at the discogography how organized it is, none of the other discographies have been written like this one and speaking of it you should go and delete them too because they don't have a reliable source material

• Timbaland_production_discography
• Just_Blaze_discography
• Darkchild
• Danja_production_discography
• J_Dilla_discography

Look, all I want from you is to understand me that I do't spread rumours and write some bullshit inhere because I did this whole thing here. The Neptunes are my passion, so I kindly ask you to Please stop removing stuff from the neptunes discography I would really appreciate it... thank you.

The Neptunes #1 Fan, Mika — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaSan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate It — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaSan (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I did read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS but a twitter page or a blog is not a reliable source like you said it too, so I've decided not to add those links because, if that's the reason, then 3/4 of the added tracks on the page need a reliable source and that's not really possible because most of them have been confirmed by their artists blogs/twitter/facebook

3/4 of the added tracks can't get a reliable source but they are all available. Will add refs to the fansites in the future edits, I hope everything is alright now, have a good one. MikaSan (talk

Okay, here is the thing Mr. Williams, how about I show you evidence of the neptunes working with someone for their future projects but the only source is a twitter/blog/facebook or youtube source, could you please then show me how to add the source of it. JohnFromPinckney told me that "The fact that fansites aren't accepted as reliable sources does not mean the solution is to remove the refs to the fansites" what does that exactly mean? For example Pharrell was recently in the studio working with the rapper Young Dose but the only source of it is a youtube video like here * how do I add a reiable source for it, and one more thing, when you gonna remove some tracks of the page, please let me know which one they are, so that I can find a reiable source that the neptunes worked with so that we can still have it on the page, thanks in advance MikaSan (talk)

I Understand MikaSan (talk)

I started editing The Neptunes Discography for I think almost 2 years, so I could Inform people about The Neptunes work they're doing for 20 years since I'm running a neptunes site since 2002. Look at the work I did here and all the hours i've spend editing the site for the love for The Neptunes and I think I did a good job here til now I guess. People have been adding stuff on the site without any sources since the beginning and that hasn't been removed, well it hasn't been removed because they're real and exist and like I said before I would be the last person to create rumours or make up things and that worked well til you guys came and demand sources, then you should go ahead and remove ALL THOSE ADDED TRACKS that hasn't been sourced because it is not fair to remove my edits because there is no a reiable source and all those unsourced tracks can stay on the discography, I think that's pretty much rude and unfair. MikaSan (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the whole thing, I don't care anymore MikaSan (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock?

Kevin, what do you think of Trywithme (talk · contribs)? The edits? They seem similar to that of Prettybeautifulnailsalon, maybe? I'm not sure though. Novice7 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that user seems like a new user. A former IP editor. That's why their edits seem similar. Sorry again! Novice7 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've compared the two users' edits, I do think Trywithme is a sock. Thanks for taking a look Kevin. Novice7 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I think I made a mistake, again! The user has posted an unblock request. Novice7 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Brexx???

Oops. Sorry. I had no idea. But Brexx and the other 'Pretty...' something did not usually edit Beyonce's articles. Lol. It is indeed surprising. But i know you must be right. Thanks. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I badly need your help. See this. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And no, let it be for now. I like to befriend IPs (especially when they are crazy about Beyonce. Lol. Just joking.) ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, take a look over here (near the bottom of the section). All the IPS first edits being to state their opinion there. Brexx again maybe? — Status {^talk_contribs 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Look at their contributions and account creation dates. Some of them are very very very old. Especially, they edit all types of articles. It may be Brexx and it also may not be. Just like days ago, a 46 year old editor who usually edits about cyclones, etc made a c/e of "Love on Top" just like that. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Another sock, maybe? Start Over and Party (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Within hours of account creation, asks three editors for their opinion regarding "Party" song's single release! Novice7 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Watching.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that it is possible to create so many accounts. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention

I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Controversial_images.2C_NOTCENSORED.2C_and_Foundation_principles.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Block request

86.182.31.36 (talk · contribs) I hope these requirements are not bothersome. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about 90.196.119.159 (talk · contribs) and 92.30.233.112 (talk · contribs). They have been adding factual errors, writing signatures and disrupting in general. Could the latter be blocked again? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Hi, could you block User:Mirrored Love? He is edit warring and refuses to discuss notability on this article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Message regarding the Skin (Rihanna song) deletion debate

Hello. This is a generic message that I am sending to all of the Wikipedia contributors who have aired their views on this deletion debate. Since you last contributed your perspective, the article has been significantly expanded. You may wish to change, alter or expand your argument in light of these developments at the discussion page. Thanks. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kww

What can i do to get another chance?.......i don't even remember why the brexx account got blocked from the first place, i admit that i should have waited till my block expired in the brexx account and should not have created another account etc.....but im really not vandalizing, and im just adding reliable information with reliable sources.......i forgot the password for the brexx account, so i cant get in there.....i know your a good person and just want the best for wikipedia, but were all human, we all make mistakes....66.27.71.42 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he deserves a chance. We are all human being; we all err. (My parents always tell me this). ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. Nothing at all. It's been three years. You were a bad editor as Brexx, you've been a bad editor through the life of hundreds of socks, and there's no reason to believe that you will ever be a good editor. Go away.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And, as a follow-up, this crap you are doing now of using software that breaks into other peoples computers and uses them to edit is a crime. Stop.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Kelvin, why did you remove these edits. As far as i see, the IP corrected wrong information + he sourced them appropriately:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7] (Partly correct)
• [8]
• [9]

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not know that we can create references. Actually, i live in a country where we do not know all these advanced technologies. Lol. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 03:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Another account of Brexx

Monroe Carey (talk · contribs) Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Another IP 75.81.247.229 (talk · contribs) Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Kevin, this user is adding unsourced genres, again. Please do something. Novice7 (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Using two IPs now, I guess. No disruptive edits. 189.150.173.17 (talk · contribs) and 187.150.96.224 (talk · contribs). Novice7 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Very unlikely to be her. Wrong country, and I don't think she knows how to use proxies.—Kww(talk) 11:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. By the way, a completely unrelated person's sock: Beyoncefan4ever (talk · contribs). Sock of Beyonceloverlove (talk · contribs), I think. Creation of Beyonce articles soon after account creation. Novice7 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's unlikely to be a new user, but I don't know what account to link it to.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyonceloverlove would help, I think. DUCK, maybe? Novice7 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cheers (Drink to That0

Just because an IP changes the certification, doesn't mean they are always wrong. I know a lot of the time they are wrong, but always check the source. I did, that's why I didn't revert it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree here. Personally, i look for may things about Beyonce daily on the web but never for certifications. If it weren't for IPs, i do not even know i would have cared to check/verify for certifications. IPs are indeed helpful but i know this cannot be generalized. I think we should welcome IPs and encourage them to create their account. That's how i got addicted to Wikipedia. I will never forget the one who encouraged me to create an account here. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I had blocked the IP as Brexx, and reverted on that basis. I realized that was a mistake, unblocked, and reverted my own reversion. I don't revert IPs because they are IPs, I revert IPs when I have good reason to believe they are evading a block. Once I decide the edit was block evasion, I don't care whether it was right or wrong: I just revert it.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for notifying me each time Kelvin. Take care. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed: sock!

Kevin, I'm 99% sure Beyoncefan4ever (talk · contribs) is a sock of Beyonceloverlove (talk · contribs) or Bupdate (talk · contribs). This edit confirms that: addition of speculations/rumors, fansite links etc. Novice7 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm listening and looking. Not quite convinced yet, but close.—Kww(talk) 11:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Beyonceloverlove has a history of 'Beyonce...' socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beyonceloverlove/Archive). The creation of the DVD article caught my attention. Edits similar to another sock Beyonceismybiggistfan (talk · contribs). Also, addition of unsourced content/speculations: similar to that of Bupdate, another sock ([10]). I'm sure all these accounts are the same, would a CU help Kevin? Novice7 (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a confirmed sock less than 90 days old. Can you?—Kww(talk) 11:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I couldn't. Tnxman307 tagged Bupdate as a sock of Beyonceloverlove, but there's no SPI case page for that. Novice7 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Brexx will not just give it up! Damn Kevin! — Status {^talk_contribs 02:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew that user was a sock of Brexx Kevin. Novice7 (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's back, I think: Still the one i do this 4... (talk · contribs) (same "y'all" usage, small "i" etc, modifying release history etc.) Novice7 (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Ultrabeyonce (talk · contribs) is a sock too. I don't know whose sock it is: either Beyonceloverlove or Brexx. Wow, many socks! Novice7 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it seems like Beyonce has many crazy fans (, including me. Lol.) ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 13:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Please check your e-mails sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Answers

He found me because Jivesh boodhun is my real name. Do you have an email? I need to talk to you. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just click the button "e-mail this user" link. I'd rather not post my e-mail address here. I tried searching for you Facebook by name, and couldn't find you. I wonder what went wrong.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see your email. Anyway, email me first, then i will email you. >>> jivesh1205@hotmail.com

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when you email me. I will be going to bed in less than 5 minutes. I am not sure i will be here tomorrow because my cousin is getting married. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Selena Gomez

Please see Talk:Selena_Gomez#Bieber. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

My recent editing activity has lead me to two things. One, that many editors attempt to combine sources and facts to synthesis information in ways that suit their agendas or their perceptions. Both are equally damaging to Wikipedia even if the latter is not something the editor him/herself may not realize. The second....I am spending WAY too much time on a certain subject. To occupy my time (pun, very much intended) I have begun a Wikipedia essay article. Remembering my own faults as an early editor and our many discussions on The Rocky Horror Picture Show an example of synthesis perception problems I had there of facts and references.... I thought you might be a perfect person to help with this in any form or fashion you wish. (Plus, your spelling an grammar are impeccable...and mine are not. LOL!)

I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the (edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay! While I know you have little time with other duties and situations, please see this as something to enjoy in the time you may have for such things!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a RFAR is the only way to stop

that. Poisoning the well, etc. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludwigs2 should be tried first? I've assembled a bit of evidence at ANI that he was previously topic banned for other similarly bad behavior from astrology. However, it seems to me that the topic area matters little, as Ludwigs2 seems to get easily riled-up in any discussion on controversial matters. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Malta chart

Hello Kww, I'm in doubt about the chart of the country Malta, on wikipedia nothing exists about the subject, see source 1 2. Is possible to add these graphics here Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)??? Lucas Brígido ^Msg 01:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think not have problem, because I have seen in other articles the chart of that country. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You can see this source also 1 (original page), this source is about the chart in Africa can be used here?? Lucas Brígido ^Msg 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help!! Lucas Brígido ^Msg 03:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hosiery (or hoser)?

I keep seeing this guy at Drake discography, making the same edits (reverting farther and farther back as the article develops). The similar edits I've seen here are

• 09:49, 8 November 2011
• 09:54, 6 November 2011
• 11:42, 1 November 2011 seems to be the edit they keep reverting to. Which I think is really:
• 09:57, 29 October 2011 by a named user, not the IP.
• 08:24, 25 October 2011 by same named user
• 21:58, 17 October 2011 by same named user
• 06:38, 26 September 2011 by same named user
• 08:51, 20 September 2011 by same named editor, with similar edits, but not all identical.

Damn, it seems I've got a pretty complete SPI case here now. Should I take it there? Users are allowed to not sign in, aren't they? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an IP user, so the address keeps changing, but it's the same (76.193.xxx.xxx) range. It's Chicago, not Detroit, but I thought maybe it's one of your friends with a hosiery fetish, and that you'd recognize them as a sock. Possibly it's just a determined editor focussed on restoring one thing (addition of some non-single singles, AFACT), at the expense of all other changes since. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the IP protection. The named account has hit it a couple more times now (here and here), but I've reverted/undone what needed it and I've started taking the leave-a-notice approach more seriously. I think I naively expect people to read, understand, and accept the vast wisdom in my edit summaries, but I guess a lot of editors never look at them (or just don't care). Possibly, my note on his page will be too long or condescending to make a positive impact, too. We'll see how it goes in the next several days. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu

Hi Kww. I just saw the Sockpuppet investigation link. Then I suspected that IP suggesting the version was the same person who used to do the thing. Anyway, after I have restored (via copy and paste), I began the copy editing / clean up. Nevertheless, I'll agree with the revert and enhance the article instead by taking what's essential and compliant to Wiki policies from that version that was allegedly full of copyright violations. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kww. I am wondering why my edits were reverted. As I have said in my prior edits, I agree with the revert of my earliest edits to the article that were a direct (but completely innocent) compliance to the suggestion of the IP, which I later realized is someone who was involved in the sockpuppetry. But then again, I said that I will start again and improve the article based on my personal will. WP:BAN states in part: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." I therefore request that the revert be reverted. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply because I am a Wikipedian and I see there's a lot fix in that article. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Singles chart

Hello, can you help me to discuss about the legality of the Israeli singles chart (one by one) on Wikipedia? I think the chart is fine because there's nothing wrong with people choices on the chart, and it also reflects the Israeli music fans' selections in the country. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Brexx, maybe? Cockinesss (talk · contribs)? Novice7 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing... Kevin, do you think you can do a histmerge with User:Status/Sandbox/09 and When I Grow Up (Pussycat Dolls song) for me? — Status {^talk_contribs 01:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your help.

i will be on the look out for him. gee he's famous. BenWasHere (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock drawer

This looks like your friend Mr. sHoE. (Seems to need help with spelling and proofreading, by the way.) It looks like his block has expired and he's twiddling here and there again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is still some vandalism left in the discography of Willow Smith. Candyo32 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock...?

Is it just me or does this look very familiar? He hasn't been around for long but he very quickly started redirecting articles and genre-warring. I can't put my finger on it, but I've seen this before. - eo (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look harder tonight, but no one leaps to mind.—Kww(talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

86.142.233.1

Is this IP a sock of MariaJaydHicky? Same location, ISP etc. Also, I think BlackBurberry (talk · contribs) is a sock of Hicky too. Novice7 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite convinced on BlackBurberry.—Kww(talk) 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Observing their edits... The user's a sock of some blocked user, I'm sure. Novice7 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but until I can be sure precisely who is socking, I can't block unless the edits are obviously disruptive.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, got an account on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBurberry (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections

Greetings Kww. On behalf of the volunteer co-ordinators I'd like to welcome you to the elections and extend an offer of assistance if you run into any trouble with the paperwork or behaviour around your election pages. Get in touch if you run into any trouble, and good luck! Skomorokh 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please look over your row on the table on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide page? Feel free to correct any mistakes or to fill in any missing information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph201

Remember User talk:Joseph201? You blocked him very recently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joseph201) I can't help but notice that a very similarly named person, User talk:Zelda201, recently appeared and started doing the same revert he had been doing right before he was blocked...(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_You_Remind_Me&diff=prev&oldid=461842283). Is there anything we can do? Or do we have to wait until he actually acts up more? Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you've answered my question already. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One of Mariah Carey's LAMBs

Hi! Are you one of Mariah Carey's LAMBs as I saw that you'ved added imput on her page. Just one LAMB to another :) BlackBurberry (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

user:JentinaChapman

Oh mate, you've cocked it up, saw on her facebook, she wrote this comment: who the fuck is this Kww on Wikipedia? and who the fuck is mariajaydhicky? what the fuck has he been smoking? stupid prick do an IP match with mine and JentinaChapman's and you'll see we ain't connected! And more to the point you've pissed off one of both a hip-hop superstar and a pikey both what she is.. 86.142.233.1 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: Pretty pretty please run a checkuser on me. I promise I won't use the results to create another sockpuppet and evade detection. –MuZemike 21:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly of interest might be User talk:Dan56. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification (at your request)

Concerning this report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728#"Tailsman 67"

He is back, has resumed posting about Wikia on talk pages, displayed arrogance towards an admin in an edit summary (the one where he removed the Unblock request from his own talk), and still refuses to sign his posts (despite warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removes). All that shortly after his ban expired. Most of it is not against actual policy, but displays the same trend of disruptive behaviour that was observed in the past. I just thought I'd let you know. :) --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Kww,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: You're in for it now, dude.  8-0  — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Soul and Jazz awards

Yup, but somehow it has found its way back to haunt us. And I think I have a suspect: 187.127.87.241 (talk · contribs) (although it's been almost a year since their last "contributions"). SnapSnap 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on your position wrt causing offense based on religious belief

Hi. Here you said "I'm happy to support language about offensiveness and shock value so long as offense based in a religious belief is explicitly excluded from consideration." Can you explain to me what is exceptional about religious offense, as compared with violent or sexually offensive content? Several editors have made the distinction but I'm wondering about the rationale behind it. And the Foundation resolution that kicked off this latest round of discussion explicitly included religious content in its advice regarding controversial content. Bear in mind that one board member I asked said he was unaware of any discussion at the board level that would suggest that the resolution applies only to commons. [11] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a particularly poorly thought out resolution in my mind. It was aimed at Commons, but it's true that it wasn't explicitly limited to Commons. It's impetus for being, however, was the massive quantities of porn being stored on Commons that no one was willing to undergo the process of having a lengthy discussion per image over.

As for my reasons for excluding religious offense, it's a consequence of the need to treat all religions equally. For purposes of an encyclopedia, religions are neither true nor false, they just are. We should never endeavour to prove Christianity false, for example, nor would we try to prove Buddhism to be true. We simply report what the beliefs of each system are. We don't weigh some as being better or more important than others, either: the religious beliefs of billions of Muslims are no better and no worse than the millions of Latter-day Saints or a few tribesmen in Papua New Guinea. From our perspective, they are all the same.

An enormous number of images in our articles cause offense to someone based on religious beliefs. We really can't afford to remove all pictures of women, or dead people, or dancing, or nudity, or others based on the fact that they offend some people on religious grounds. Yet, we can't decide that some images are religiously offensive enough to remove without placing that religious belief in a superior position to others.

That leaves us in the position of ignoring all religious beliefs, in order to have a functioning encyclopedia and place all religions on equal footing. Most of the images that are a real problem (the anti-Semitic images that have been brought up) get covered under our attack policies. If an image is designed to attack people based on religious grounds, it needs to be removed. That test could arguably cover the various "Mohammed in hell" pictures, but wouldn't cover any of the images that are the current source of discussion.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on your last point, do you agree with me that a medieval depiction of "Muhammad in hell" could be used in Medieval European demonization of Muhammad in art and literature, just as "Jews-sucking louse-typhus" is appropriate in Themes in Nazi propaganda#Jews, or do you think it has no place on the project at all? That is, if such images were the topic of an article, would it be appropriate to use them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If the attacks themselves are the subject of the article, that would have to be considered. It would be foolish to remove all illustrations of antisemitism from antisemitism, for example. It would need to be clear from context that the illustration is recognized as an attack, and not endorsed.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will address your response to my first question but can I just ask where you stand with regard to using the goatse.cx image at goatse.cx if the copyright difficulties are resolved? (I'm assuming you're familiar with the controversy and its resolution.) It's an image that is the subject of the article, essentially, and so highly relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never really taken a position on that one. I've got a hard time envisioning anyone visiting the article that isn't aware of the image, so I don't have a really strong opinion either way.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I went to the article for the first time knowing nothing about the image; I'd seen a cryptic reference to it. You would not exclude the image from the article purely on the basis of its offensiveness, would you, given it is highly relevant? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I could see an argument that it shouldn't be in the infobox, or perhaps even collapsed, but excluding it entirely wouldn't be consistent with the way we normally treat images.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not put it in the infobox? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that I would agree to that, simply that I wouldn't see the argument for doing so as unreasonable. Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time pondering the issue.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've had a chance to think about it now. This is a fairly straightforward example of a grossly offensive image with high relevance to an article. Does it belong in the article's infobox? If not, why not, given it pretty much is what the article is about? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a situation where I tend to abide with consensus. I think we overuse images. I would remove every album cover, single cover, book cover, and magazine cover from Wikipedia for example. My preference would be not to include the image at all, given that its impact and meaning can be described. I would normally lose such an argument, and would calmly accept being outvoted.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You say excluding the image would be inconsistent with usual practice but you see a reasonable argument (which you may not support) in favour of collapsing it or not putting it in the infobox. That must be a different argument from the one you just put: that there are too many images. "That there are too many images" is an argument for removal of the image from the article. What is the reasonable argument for collapsing or demoting it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Re [12]. I just copied mine from NW, so you might want to check his, too. Good luck with the election, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I rebutted Sandy's usual in her election guide on the talk page and plan to leave it at that, anything more would be counterproductive. Just don't take it too seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re; Arb comments

Fair enough, I see more clearly where you're coming from then. I probably misread the statement, though it seems to be a frequent misread. I'm fine with the deletionist views since I've become one myself. Still don't agree with that BLP stance entirely, though I'm against whitewashing articles myself and get that part of the argument. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom 2011 answers and info

Hi Kww, thank you for your answers to my questions at ACE2011. In addition to many editors and admins, I too believe that the Arbcom has made a big mistake here in their unblocking of this editor and/or have handled it badly -- one may reasonably assume that due to the lack of clear comment there is somewhat a closing of ranks on the committee on the issue. According to Jclemens this editor was unblocked on the basis of checkuser evidence. In essence, the editor was unblocked because IPs didn't match. I made note at the clarification request, that IP's or browsers alone should never be used to determine sockpuppetry -- I demonstrated this by stating the obvious -- editors can have many IPs, and given choices by consumers, ISPs and browsers can be changed at whim, but behavioural and editorial traits are harder to change. It appears that the committee has used ONLY this checkuser evidence, and have totally ignored WP:DUCK and behavioural evidence. It would be a nightmare for WP if this were to be the case for all sockpuppets (as you are well aware given your history of investigating them).

User:Prioryman has an evidence page where he notes striking similarities between the sockmaster and his sockpuppets (TLAM being the Arbcom-unblocked incarnation). It needs to be noted, and made explicitly clear, that since being unblocked the editor in question has received a topic ban for acting disruptively in the very area and same articles that the sockmaster was disruptive in. Adding to the incredulity of the situation, the sockpuppet has had his topic ban relaxed at WP:AE in order for him to participate in mediation processes on Holodomor - it has to somewhat set a (very bad) precedent that a sockpuppet is allowed to participate in a mediation in an area from which the sockmaster and other sockpuppets have been indef blocked. So obviously you can understand the importance of this issue from that aspect.

I have noted some bleeding obvious WP:DUCK evidence at the Clarification request. Look at the diffs I provide in the first sentence for example. Other DUCK similarities include:

• [13][14] (tags for "junk")
• [15][16] (use of "begin section")

I am emailing to you also a couple of pieces of other DUCK evidence, and am doing this because it is evidence that when I saw it, it "stuck out like dogs balls", and all but convinces me that TLAM is Marknutley, and it is unwise to give sockpuppets a complete insight into behavioural and editorial traits that give them away. We don't need to give them an opportunity to change their habits to make them harder to detect; we want to them to give themselves away so that they can be blocked, as this one originally was.

I have shown evidence to several admins, some of whom were involved in previous SPI involving this editor, and none of them are willing to stand up and "go over Arbcoms head", even though they are all but convinced that it is a sockpuppet. Then you have Arbcom "closing ranks" and protecting their appeal decision which was based on different IPs, and whilst ignoring convincing behavioural and DUCK evidence. So there is basically a stalemate; no admin will do anything, because Arbcom refuse to disclose information, and Arbcom are hesitant to pass the issue back to the community to deal with because it makes the committee look like it ballsed up (which is has, in good faith); however.....

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2, User:John Vandenberg states "We've said that if there is better evidence, we're happy to be overruled in this instance." I think you can agree that the evidence here on your talk page and linked pages is better than editing from different IPs (in same geographical area) being evidence of not being a sockpuppet. A few of the other arbs have either supported, or insinuated they would support, either a reblocking of TLAM or a blocking of TLAM given behaviour since being unblocked - to be topic banned from an area only a matter of weeks after being unblocked is indicative of problematic editorial behaviour.

However, it is plainly obvious that the Committee as a whole has basically closed ranks on the original unblock. Possibly it is because to admit that they may have erred, erred in good gaith, but erred all the same, could call into question the integrity of the Committee in the eyes of the community; but I believe that the continual denials of any possible good faith error being made (such as Coren's answers to questions) is what calls into question the integrity of the Committee in the end. And it is that which is a core issue here.

I do have to give you kudos, because part of the reason that I posted what I did, was to see what candidates would do about the information that was presented. Barring sitting Arbs, none of the candidates actually looked at the issues that were raised in any great depth -- and investigating issues in depth is something that Arbs are supposed to do! -- and you are the only one who offered to actually do so. You didn't offer judgement one way or another, but you did say you would look at it. And for that alone, it makes you stand out from the others. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of both on-Wiki comments and private correspondence I get the impression that the committee really doesn't want to re-block TLAM and that the lack of checkuser evidence is convenient in this regard. My guess is that they know he'll simply create another sockpuppet if the TLAM account is blocked. Thus if the TLAM account is allowed to continue he'll be easier to keep tabs on. Sort of like "better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in," using the parlance of our times. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you've e-mailed me anything, I did not receive it.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you receive it Kww? I sent it twice a couple of days ago, via the email user function. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Some of your evidence is fairly persuasive, but I haven't quite decided what to do yet. I'm inclined to reblock, but haven't done so yet.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Singlechart}}

Kevin, do you think there is any way that the works and publishers for references produced by the template could not be linked? For example, instead of

"Ultratop.be – Eminem feat. Rihanna – Love the Way You Lie" (in French). Ultratop 50. Ultratop & Hung Medien / hitparade.ch. Retrieved 2010-09-23.

We could have...

"Ultratop.be – Eminem feat. Rihanna – Love the Way You Lie" (in French). Ultratop 40. Ultratop & Hung Medien / hitparade.ch. Retrieved 2010-09-23.

And basically the same with Billboard, Official Charts Company, etc. referenes? I understand this would be a very complicated task to make possible, but any input is appreciated. I would like consistent linking in my references, which will be raised in FAC. Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculously complex to do it the first call and not subsequent calls (which I think is technically correct). The reaction to an FAC reviewer that complains about repetitive linking from a template should be "go screw yourself", or a more vulgar version thereof. It's not a reasonable measure of whether an article is worthy of being featured, and is beyond petty.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. I was not so confident about it myself. Never hurts to ask however. Happy editing then. Bye. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hit the Lights (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

You really think it is okay to keep a loop-redirect? The album links to the song, but the redirect sends you back to the album. That was what I was trying to solve. It is okay when you unlink it, but this redirect is rather silly. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Loop redirects are fairly harmless. If it really bothers you, take the link out of the album article. That would be better than deleting the song article, especially since the song article survived an AFD with a "redirect" result. It really isn't eligible for CSD after that.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brexx

You aware of this? User talk:Jimbo Wales#Brexx Siawase (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brazil Hot 100 Charts

I deeply apologize for adding that, I didn't know their was a bad charts pages. Thanks for informing me, it won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Brexx

...I know your gonna keep looking for the slightest mistake so you can report me.... listen, i am here in good faith and to make wikipedia a better place..... i am not vandalizng......3 years ago, yes, i made mistakes, but im not like that anymore, were all human, we all make mistakes, as can be seen in your block log, you were blocked several times, but were given chances, and i deserve that as well.........so, please...if u want to be friends, ill be more than happy for that, as were are both in the same team, we are both here to help make wikipedia a reliable place. Don't Talk With Me (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I just repelaced it with a source that said November 18.....but since earliest release dates are the one's that should be put in the infobox, i changed it back..........anyway, you want to be friends and help each other or not?Don't Talk With Me (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Wearstler, really?

Hi Kww. Your Arbcom nomination responses were brought to my attention, as that darn Kelly Wearstler article was brought up. I just wanted to say that it makes me really sad that you would assume that those involved in rewriting the article would be anti-Playboy (I'm surely not, and I know you don't know me and my personal interests, but I assure you, I'm not.) and that "Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior design business rather than her Playmate past."

If you read the article, and sources, Wearstler is pretty open about her Playboy experience, it's also emphasized in the lead. However, she's a Los Angeles Times bestselling writer and has her clothing and good sold at Bergdorf Goodman. I used to work in the fashion industry, for 10+ years, high end fashion at that, and to have your clothing sold exclusively at BG is quite an honor. I understand you might not be versed in high fashion or the culture, but, trust me, it's a big deal, perhaps even more of a big deal (in this day an age) than being a Playboy bunny. (sorry!) She also has a fashion line, and does the major fashion week shows, again, in fashion, this is like the Superbowl.

I wasn't familiar with who she was until I came across the article and decided to work on it. I pride myself, as someone who has been editing and writing about BLP's for quite sometime, about keeping things neutral. I've got some peer reviewed articles under my belt regarding bio's, and I've never had a problem with someone accusing an article I've worked on as being non-neutral because it was expanded to reflect the major media outlets that have documented her career post-Playboy. I assure you that I do not know Wearstler, and if "she" or her "people" were involved in anyway in editing the article, I wouldn't know (and I really really doubt they were).

Playboy isn't bad, I don't always enjoy all their gimmicks (that TV show was really terrible), but, I also don't think a woman's career needs to based around a brief moment in their life of posing in a magazine to get by. I'm really disappointed that you would assume we'd knocking Playboy and that Wearstler was involved. The last thing I want to do is have any drama, but, I was so frustrated with your response, I had to say something. As your comments incensed me, as I took it personal, as a colleague and co-editor of Wikipedia, almost like an attack on my writing. I hope you understand. SarahStierch (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was also surprised by your comments regarding the Kelly Wearstler article. The assertion that Wearstler's most notable achievement was posing in Playboy is absurd. And the fact that you would use that as an example of abuse of the BLP policy is even worse. If you can't assume good faith in a straight-forward case such as this, I have little confidence that you will exercise appropriate judgement in BLP cases that come before the Arbitration committee. Kaldari (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As most of the work on that article was done recently by Sarah, it seems natural to conclude that your comments were in regard to her rewriting of the article. Since that isn't the case (according to your response), I would encourage you to clarify your comments at the election discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Kevin are you aware of any Canadian video charts by Nielsen or by Billboard or even by CRIA? I searched a lot but couldn't find one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Brenda Song and Pixie Hollow Games

Thanks for your attention to Brenda Song; however, before deleting material, please take some minimal steps to make sure that the material you're deleting is incorrect or inappropriate. A search in either Google or Google News for "Pixie Hollow Games Brenda Song" would have shown the information to be correct and appropriate; and even a Wikipedia search would have found Pixie Hollow Games. Thanks! TJRC (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish Music Charts

Please have the addition of two templates Polish charts. All they will need to add "chartid" :

- Dance Top 50: http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/dyskoteki/index.php?idlisty=519 - Polish Video Chart: http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/nielsen/video.php?idlisty=540

"Tailsman67"

Hi Kww. Remember blocking an IP that kept on signing his name as "Tailsman"? His old IP was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A74.163.17.131 - As you can see from the block log, you blocked him because I reported him at ANI. (And he was blocked again later as well.)

Anyways, I remember you writing something along the lines of "let me know if you need further help with him". Please see this new IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.71.49.191 - as you can see from his talk page, he is acting just like this Tailsman, editing in all the same places, causing trouble all over, etc. I was wondering if you could help me with him again. (Pretty certain it's him, but if by chance he's not, this IP is still acting terribly by it's own merits.) Let me know. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for always hearing me out. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there ... I've been following this saga as well, although nowhere near as long or as closely as Sergecross has. Anyway, I think we're at the point where the IP is abusing talk page privileges, as suggested by this range of edits. Thanks for your assistance with this apparent vandal. --McDoobAU93 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for block

86.132.184.153 (talk · contribs) is either Charlie or user:MariaJaydHicky (given "her" comments on "her" talkpage I bet for the first). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The user 86.133.181.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) needs a reblock. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the heads up about Chace Watson (talk · contribs) socks. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I patrol a whole bunch of frequently vandalized pages for unsourced additions and vandalism. I just wanted to say "Thanks!" for proactively taking care of the little problem on Ciara discography.

This isn't always an easy job, thanks for helping! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Youtube Songs?

Hello Kww, I have a question. Look "Dance for You" a user has added this chart "Billboard Youtube Songs". That's right? because "Youtube" is just for music videos. I think this chart should not be used Billboard Other charts, but not sure. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 00:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Lucas Brígido ^Msg 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brexx has returned?

216.249.66.160 (talk · contribs) and Dumb + dumb = 4 (talk · contribs). Seems like he has returned. I'm not 100% sure it's Brexx (talk · contribs), but a lot of release date stuff is being messed with... — Status {^talk_contribs 11:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And again. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got him again. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on my talk over him removing a comment I said about him being a possible sockpuppet of Brexx. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi

You were the administrator who gave User:Iqinn an indefinite block. I suspect whoever is behind that ID has been trying to evade that block, via sockpuppetry, and I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Refactoring

I just came across your comment on my talk page. I need to explain. I have a greasemonkey script that replaces certain words (profanity) with ****. I forgot I had it active, and it must have saved it when I added my comment. It was completely unintentional, and I apologize if I caused any trouble. In the future, I will disable the script when I edit. Cypher3c (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Year-end charts

Hello Kww, I'm here again. In "Year-end charts" can add "Hot 100 Airplay"? The page "Wikipedia:Record charts#Billboard charts" says it cannot be used with "Billboard Hot 100". For example Sweet Dreams this should be corrected? Or the rule is not valid for "Year-end charts". Lucas Brígido ^msg 12:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, fix my signature. I'll use the page "Record charts", thank you. Lucas Brígido ^msg 13:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

hahaha!! no problem, but you're right, here is not the correct place to add all my doubts "because there are many questions". Lucas Brígido ^msg 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kww, I did same question in my Wikipedia (Portuguese) and the response was the same as your, I'll make the correction, I think no have problem. Lucas Brígido ^msg 14:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Better late than never. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Selena Gomez & the Scene discography

Why have you continued for a few weeks with the same type of reverts without talk page discussion? CTJF83 13:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it's just standard discography maintenance. Reverting unsourced positions and certifications, undoing vandalism, and semi-protecting it when it gets to be too much. Her articles get hit heavily because many of her fans are children.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I must've confused your edits with the IPs warring over charts. Also, shouldn't "The" be capitalized in their name, as it is part of the bands name? CTJF83 13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 4, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Monster block?

Hi, Kevin. Would you be inclined to give this editor a little rap with your blocking stick? He doesn't edit heavily but when he does, he's incessantly removing inline refs (whether he thinks they're ugly or just unneeded, I don't know, as he never uses an edit summary) and adding changed peaks which fail to verify. Four examples are from 14 December 2011, 19 December 2011, and 22 December 2011 twice, all since I gave him a second last warning on his talk page. Maybe it's time to get his attention with a short block and let him know we seriously like WP:V? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Or how about a longer block, for block evasion? If this guy isn't Mikeeypee], I'll, I'll ... I'll eat an image of Muhammed. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. And while I'm here, I hope you have a really fine Christmas. Warm regards, John. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mikeeypee had a habit of deleting inline refs without comment, as did Mikeeymonster, whom you blocked as a sock. Now comes Mikeeymonster44, who just made a similar deletion. (The ref he deleted was broken, but all he needed to do was add the missing ">" and the ref would have supported the CAN peak. No edit summary, as usual.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hit the Lights

I see you have a prot on the Hit the lights article stopping IPs from re-creating the article as a Metallica song. Looking through the history I noticed that the article was actually about a song by an entirely different artist. See: Diff between current and previous. Should it be reset to that article by any chance? Just wondering. I fully support the quick AfD about not having an article about the Metallica non-single. But there appears to be something a little deeper here. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Move page

Hello, Mr. admin. Please help me to move Gimme All Your Luvin (Madonna song) to Gimme All Your Luvin which is currently redirected to the former. There's no other pages using "Gimme All Your Luvin", so we don't need to have "(Madonna song)" here. Thank you. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesf is back

Can't even think of a new naming patter. [17] --Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is this?

Forgive my immediate suspicions, but User:Sparks flew looks terribly familiar. The account, already blocked for edit warring, was created on 23 December and his first edit was to create a song article. Not the normal edits of a newbie. Ring any bells? - eo (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess who's back?

Back again... back to old... W-A-Y-S — Status {^talk_contribs 08:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

When will his damn ass just go away? Special:Contributions/24.179.58.130 — Status {^talk_contribs 22:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response/action required

Your response or action is required here. You have had more than 24 hours now, so I am not sure if you missed it or if escalation is required. Hans Adler 08:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't missed it: just decided that pointing out one more time that religious neutrality is an important principle and that responding to your demands would undermine it one more time was counterproductive. However, you have been ignoring a question from an arbitrator at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop#(4) Question to and about Hans Adler. Planning on responding any time in the near future?—Kww(talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As should be clear by now I simply had neither enough time nor an adequate computer for doing much. I am of course not going to ignore AGK's question completely now that I am back at home -- although others have answered for me, and IMO satisfactorily. Hans Adler 08:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Take a 24 hour break from the Muhammad images workshop. There is nothing crucial about the workshop, and it appears that you are letting yourself get too worked up about it. Everything will still be here in a day's time. NW (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

I'm not sure what has happened at Talk:Kim Kardashian but your last post has somehow introduced a German (?) cite error at the foot of the page. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

CharlieJS13

In the form of 86.181.212.228 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Harrased User talk:Legolas2186 as he has with previous socks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As well as 86.173.213.45. This IP harassed me as it has with previous socks and reverted Tbhotch. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please block 86.182.111.70. He has a clever scheme of using templated messages now instead of the vulgar threats: [18] [19] Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Added as a party to Muhammad images

Kww, I have been asked by the drafting Arbitrator to add you as a party to the Muhammad images case. You have experience with Arbitration, so I presume I don't need to send you the standard template links, but if you need any assistance with anything, please feel free to ask. NW (Talk) 02:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WHY?!?!?!?

Why did you remove my question from Talk:PBS Kids?!?!?

68.224.119.202 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Want to say thanks for your help with the socks plague: [20]. Not sure if you've noticed this. --Ben Ben (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you here to answer my question why Teletubbies didn't return to PBS? I want to watch it again on TV. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input

Hi Kww, would you mind taking a look at this thread on my talk page? One of the accounts linked there has a block performed by you, and your input on the thread would be appreciated. Thanks! Acalamari 13:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pesf v92.0

Might need an WP:RBI on 92.24.200.236, see on Brother (Boyzone album) etc. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And again by 92.29.28.75. Can you please semi-protect Brother (Boyzone album)? Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And 2.98.252.236 too. May be prudent to semi-protect Gave It All Away, Back Again... No Matter What and Love Is a Hurricane. --Muhandes (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again with this. User:92.25.8.178 at Back Again... No Matter What again. --Muhandes (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And again, User:2.98.248.122 on Love You Anyway, Troublemaker (Taio Cruz song) and Good Feeling (song). Especially the last has Pesf's distinct editing style. --Muhandes (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And again, User:78.149.27.65, on Greatest Day (Take That song) and many more. Is there a point in me reporting those? Is it practical to protect all Take That songs for instance? --Muhandes (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Our friend is back, 92.29.26.106 (talk). See this for example. --Muhandes (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, with feeling: 2.98.241.194 (talk) together with 92.25.9.25 (talk) (already blocked). Maybe need to protect some more articles. --Muhandes (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Now 78.149.28.72 (talk). I really see no choice but to protect Kidz (song), Progressed (EP), Love Love (Take That song), Progress (Take That album), Progress (Take That album), (first time on One Thing (One Direction song), Gotta Be You (One Direction song), What Makes You Beautiful so no need for that, but I'm sure there will be more there too). --Muhandes (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• 2.98.254.147 (talk · contribs · block user) (and 92.24.207.150 (talk) which you already blocked). Maybe protect Up All Night (One Direction album)? --Muhandes (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Brexx is a tenacious one

A bunch of my recent edits were reverts of a sock of Brexx to your edits. (Most of which were reverts.) Most of those edits have been reverted by an array of new socks. Do you have a huge "block every one of these idiots, revert their garbage, and semiprotect all those articles" button? CityOfSilver 00:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask

Are you sure about this? It is the only accessible way to verify the year-end charts. In fact, the source is used in almost every song article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

From where can I get the official ones then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have those two as UKChartsPlus has not published the 2011 charts. I needed the 2009 one. Let it be. Thanks anyway. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Obvious Sock

Hi, Can you please tell me how you justify your characterisation of me as 'an obvious sock' and let me know what steps I can take to remove this sleight against me? BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Holloway

Hey Kww, it seems that a judge announced he would sign an order declaring her dead. I have semi-proteced the article for 48 hours. If you could help keep an eye on things with me, I'd be grateful. Sorry about the ArbCom run, you'd do a better job then most of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit!

He truly tricked me this time. — Status {^talk_contribs 02:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Singles chart:

Hello, can you tell me please if the Media Forest airplay chart can be legal? 2pac Is Alive (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

86.135.7.129

Charlie's back as 86.135.7.129 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Good charts

Hi, I just wanted to remind you that you told me that you'll update WP:GOODCHARTS ;)--DujeTrogir (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

Could you please take a look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street in the sections for Crime and for the page split. I have had an encountr with a member, that has not become a full blown edit war but reverts are being made and I have made them as well so, this may well have crossed that threshhold. I am not really worried about others, strictly myself. While the discussion has included another editor (making it three) that user has not really weighed in but simply made a comment (he took me to DR over a disagreement last week). Could you tell me where you think I have either gone wrong or should have done something differently? I will be making a request for a third opinion on the actual dispute so this isn't that. I am hoping you can take a moment to mentor me of your perceptions on my own actions.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't be making a request for a third opinion. Another editor has weighed in. But please let me know what you feel I could have done differently, better or more correctly. I could still use a bit of mentoring here, or some small guidance. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your post today. I come to you so you may be stern with me if you feel I have been in the wrong. I felt I needed a moment of mentorship on this situation. I felt I was within the policy guidelines of "exceptions" but that is very much a matter of opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Hearfourmewesique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronan keating "Fires" single and Boyzone 2008 Tour

Could pages be made for these things please, everytime someone creates the boyzone tour u delete it, why? don't you like Boyzone? It is a legitamate page and it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.253.63 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)