User talk:Nathan/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nathan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Brexx

Now I'm completely lost. If a new sock pops up, and the old report is hanging around, exactly what do I do to get the new puppet blocked? I can't start reverting his edits pointing at the SPI report until it's at least filed.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If a case is still open, meaning it hasn't been closed and archived, then you should list new accounts and evidence on the same report. If a case has already been closed and archived, then create a new report like you normally do. The point is not to have two reports open at one time. Nathan^T 19:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And if it's closed but not archived? That's been the problem the last few times. When the bot fails, archiving seems to be the lowest priority, and this one was hanging in that state too. I'd happily archive manually, but I suspect that would annoy genuine clerks.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If its closed but not archived, I'd suggest taking the close tag off and adding the evidence and new accounts with a note (in the clerk section) listing the new actions you've requested. The thing that is the most bothersome is having duplicate, unarchived cases. On a related note, have you asked to become a clerk or would you like to become one? If you use IRC, you could join the clerks channel and it would be easier to resolve some of these bureaucratic problems. Nathan^T 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd considered it, but the last word was that there was no more need for non-admin clerks.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Heliosphere, aka Satanoid aka Analtap, aka Morbidfairy Back

Hi fellow editor, just to let you know this fellow is back again. For the moment I am assuming good faith, but howmany accounts must a person be banned from in order to keep coming back to Wikipedia? I can see his old behaviour returning. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another sock

Just letting you know because you've had a role in the earlier SPIs...there's a new sock of Philbox17...the SPI is here. Frmatt (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally responded to your comment on my talk page

Here [1] Thanks for your intelligent comment. Sorry it took so long to reply. -- Noroton (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment

I've already stricken the mistaken comment and replaced it. Is there something wrong with my replacement comment?—Kww(talk) 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about SPI Case

Can a user be blocked indefinitely based on speculation of WP:Duck reported by another user with out evidence?.

Here's the related arbitration case about User:Sbs108 where the user has been blocked on speculation with out evidence - [2],

What concerns me about this case is that User Sbs108 is being blocked indefinitely with out even any proof or strong evidence.
The initial evidence provided by Croatulus were just edit war history between him and Sbs108. The evidence did not prove any connection between the two accounts.
Can you please look at this case and give your comments here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SSS108

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Best question to ask in this situation, I think, is this: would ssb108 be accused/blocked if his account were named something unrelated to SSS108 (or Sathya Sai Baba)? I haven't looked it over in detail, so I don't know. There isn't anything to really comment on at the SPI case, given the lack of evidence, but an SPI case or checkuser evidence is not required to block someone as a sockpuppet of a banned user. JzG and Jpgordon are both experienced administrators, I'm sure that the situation will get the review it needs. Nathan^T 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the results from checkuser here [3] - Sbs108 is unrelated to SSS108 further it says (IPs) do not geolocate anywhere near SSS108. Will he be unblocked based on the new check user evidence? Thanks.Radiantenergy (talk)

I noticed that Jéské Couriano unblocked him. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Thank you

I want to thank you again for your courteous comments at my old User talk:Noroton page. You mentioned an IRC discussion with Versageek in which I was mentioned. Is that available online? (I'm not familiar with IRC). Can you point me to it or show me how I can read it? JohnWBarber (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not publicly available, no. Nathan^T 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

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

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chandler Bonor

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chandler Bonor. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You were mentioned at this RFC/U

Since you had commented on his talk page, you got mentioned in the write-up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4. You are welcome to certify the dispute if you agree with what Rd232, Skomorokh and I came up with or to say otherwise.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting

Hi Nathan. I was troubled to see you signed on for secret ballots. I understand the arguments for it, but it is so fundamentally contrary to our traditions of being an open and transparent community I was disappointed to see you supporting that position. Accountability is also very important. I hope you'll reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RfB poll

Hey. Someone at the WT:RFA thread suggested that another RfB poll might be needed. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly322

Don't touch my talk page anymore. Take up somewhere else if you have a problem with what I've written. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't how it works here. Nathan^T 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:master editor

Fair enough, I only assumed that he (being the founder and all) and the fact that he has a userbox that states that he's entitled to one made me think that he would have had all the necesary things to merit one.

So I'm guessing, no one has the Master Editor 2 award yet? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is Jimbo founded Wikipedia. And seeing we wouldn't be editing here if it weren't for him, he should be able to put any userbox he wants on his page. IShadowed ✰ 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He founded it? Really? Ok, I knew that. But if the userbox is for people with a specific number of edits, it seems strange to add it to a userpage for someone who doesn't have that specific number of edits. It doesn't take anything away from Jimmy, but the award recognizes prolific and sustained editing - something he has never done. Nathan^T 22:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And since I have you here, you might want to take more care in your SPI reports. We've got an administrator with a name similar to the one you reported, and you included no evidence other than the name. Since its fairly generic, a name with a variation on "puppet master" is not enough to justify a checkuser - especially in the absence of any behavioral or other evidence. Nathan^T 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinions, however, I find it astounding that you don't believe the founder of Wikipedia deserves the top editor status, regardless of number of edits.

And second, my activity on SPI has no bearing here. If you have an issue with my edits I would appreciate if you would speak with me about it on my talk page, opposed to introducing this into an unrelated conversation. IShadowed ✰ 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You happened to appear on my talkpage at the same time as I archived a case you filed. I don't think my talkpage is out of bounds for me to mention something to another editor. Since you're on my talkpage to talk to me, I don't see why I should go somewhere else to talk to you.

I don't understand why it would astound you that I don't think Jimmy should have the "Master Editor" award. I like Jimmy, have had friendly exchanges of e-mails with him on a few occasions, appreciate what he's done for Wikipedia and the role he continues to play, etc. None of this has anything to do with being a prolific editor, which is what the award is intended to recognize. I doubt he'd disagree with me, frankly, and that probably explains why he hasn't had one of those awards on his page for the last 7 years. As you say, though, you're entitled to your opinion. Nathan^T 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry for the conflict. IShadowed ✰ 00:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons deletion

Your opinion on a nomination for deletion at Commons would be appreciated here, thanks, DR04 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question

... –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maria De Berlangeer-Lichtert

Hi, just a head's up - a contested Prod cannot be re-Prodded, the article has to be taken to AfD. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion - "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." I have now listed the article at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria De Berlangeer-Lichtert. SilkTork *^YES! 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works. The person who removed the prod is a sock for the banned editor Dereks1x. I rollbacked all of his recent edits, which included a number of drive by deproddings. Seemed reasonable to me to remove those edits, even if the effect is to restore a "contested" prod, but I have no problem with you taking them to Afd. Nathan^T 00:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Nathan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. IBen Happy editing! iBen^discuss 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Why the hell did I get blocked for having 2 wiki accounts? and can you please unblock my IDALNLGHAMTFPDOA account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.167.96 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Advise

Hey, I saw that you are active at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, so maybe you are the right person to ask for advise: At Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Reviewing_the_names, 2 new people entered a (old, long, controversial) discussion about the name of the article. User:Nc1701 and User:Billy Mays Here With OxiClean. Both seem to have deep knowledge of the previous discussion, of wikipedia rules. And both have their only edits so far in that section of the talk page. It seems obvious to *me* that they must be sockpuppets, however, I have no idea who the actual user behind them might be. So I have no idea how to proceed. Should I file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Should I do something else? Or is there nothing that can be done? --Xeeron (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A report at SPI sounds like a good idea, assuming the situation is as described above (haven't checked into it yet). Any idea if any of the regular, previous participants in the discussion are linked to these new accounts? By the way, I've reported the Billy Mays account as a username violation. Nathan^T 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can not nail it down to one person and I am not happy to name several, because I would inevitably accuse several users wrongly while (maybe) being right about just one. I also do not know how to start a case when I do not know the name of the sockmaster (the create button assumes you know the sockmaster). Thx for you help so far! --Xeeron (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the master, but suspect two socks, pick whichever one started editing first - make that the master, and the other the suspected sock. Make sure you hit the button that asks for checkuser evidence. Nathan^T 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did that, thanks again for your help. --Xeeron (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Guillermo Algaze

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guillermo Algaze, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357

You want to take a look at the additional evidence that was just provided there, since you said that you looked at this case before? –MuZemike 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Undid a redirect

I undid a redirect of yours, as we're still working that case I think. The redirect seemed to make the case go away completely :) ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. With the bot down, cases aren't listed automatically. Because the case was opened with a set of socks, where one already had a prior case, the "sockmaster" used is usually the one with the prior case to keep the archives and whatnot together. I redirected the Stetsonharry case to Copyedeye, unlisted Stetsonharry and listed Copyedeye. Now, Stetsonharry and Copyedeye are both open, and only Copyedeye is listed on WP:SPI. Nathan^T 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dunno, except that following the redirect led nowhere (that is, I had the page up, hit refresh and got redirected to a different case and could not find the stuff on the page I was on.) If you can fix it, great. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well its comprehensively redirected now; probably you hit it in between my redirecting of Stetsonharry and the creation of the new Copyedeye page? I'll just wait till its completely finished and see what needs doing then, all a bit more complex without the bot to make sure everything is correctly listed. Nathan^T 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian islands

You had removed a valid number - and added something over it - I have changed it - hope you understand what happened - as the lead para states such numbers are so unreliable as to be fanciful Satu Suro 02:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting that the main article on Indonesia lists the 17,508 figure on its own, and cites the IMF. The islands article does not provide a direct citation to the ~18k number, which it should (as well as to the claim that the numbers are an inexact estimate). Nathan^T 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah well try keeping the indonesian project clean and free of inconsistencies is virtually impossible - I would appreciate any cleanup as long as it refers to the whole counting issue as not the truth and the whole truth - that is not a claim - there is not final number possible for a whole range of issues - thanks very much and appreciate your checking things - cheers Satu Suro 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

oh unless you have a very good screen, good eyes, a good calculator tabulator, and a lot of time and the top level oggle earth to hand - Satu Suro 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I was blocked for have more then one account, all my other accounts, expect this one had a permanent block. On my IDALNLGHAMTFPDOA talk page you said I could exchange blocks, making this Grapesoda22 account permanently banned and the IDALNLGHAMTFPDOA account would be Ok, could you please do so? --Grapesoda22 (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of etiquette :)

At the Watchover SPI I've asked for another account to be checked - have I done it correctly? Thanks. Orderinchaos 07:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Best thing to do probably is file a new report with evidence and whatnot. We'll relist it on the page and set it for CU attention. Nathan^T 13:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I have done so under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stravin. Used this name to file it as, if it's correct, Watchover (and the other accounts) is/are sock/s of Stravin, not the other way around. Not sure what is needed for evidence but I do have a 800k Excel spreadsheet consisting of the edit histories if anyone wants to look. Orderinchaos 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Jimbo Wales Warning for improper interference in ongoing discussion

Improper action. Reverted. Don't repeat. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning? No thanks. "Discussion" has only 1 participant, constitutes spam. Threshold for unrestricted spam privileges is $10,000 - did you miss that memo? Nathan^T 21:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! How is it best to appeal a sock puppet report?

Hello! I am an experienced Wikipedia editor working on articles relating to warfare, primarily modern warfare, WWII and post-WWII. This appeal is not about me. Due to my skillful edits in the 2008 South Ossetia War article I have earned three Barnstars. Alas when you make good edits, you aren't always congratulated by the other side. In the title debates, over a year ago, I received a threat: As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results.

I didn't want to bring it up, but unfortunately it affected two new Wikipedians. NC1701 and BillyMays. You see, Xeeron thought they were my sockpuppets, because they came onto the 2008 South Ossetia War talkpage and made arguments against the title change. In his evidence presented, Xeeron erred in his claim: "Both demonstrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion (which is mainly buried in the lengthy archives) and cited wikipedia rules." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nc1701#Evidence_submitted_by_Xeeron. This was rebutted by NC1701: "My arguments came from archives. My arguments included massive copy paste. Arguments of Billy Mays came from the tip of the article: common sense, google search, first paragraph, article map, summary of first section on talkpage." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nc1701

Alas, NC1701 was banned as per this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nc1701

Is there any way to reopen the case, as I feel bad that two new Wikipedians received the short end of the stick and I wasn't able to prevent it earlier? I think that both NC1701 and BillyMays would agree to a checkuser, to show that they are different users. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, a checkuser was performed in this case and the accounts did come back as unrelated. BillyMays is username blocked, as the name referred to the recently deceased infomercial announcer Billy Mays. To appeal the block on Nc1701, you might want to contact the blocking administrator or have Nc1701 post up an unblock template. Alternatives are contacting the arbitration committee or the unblock mailing list. Nathan^T 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, thank you :D As for BillyMays, if he wants to come back, he'll have to choose a better name. Thank you again for the help! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22 case

Hello, Nathan. I'd like to draw your attention to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka#Explanation

As the Clerk in this case you might have some useful insight. Irvine22 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response at Elonka's talk page. I understand that you do not wish to discuss the specifics of this case. However, you indicated a willingness to answer questions about SPIs in general. So, in general, do clerks or checkusers act only upon verifiable evidence in the form of diffs and links to pages on which sockpuppetry is supposedly occuring, as the guidelines seem to suggest, or do they in practise often act solely upon the unverified suspicions of editors? Irvine22 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We generally act on diff evidence that demonstrates the potential for abusive sockpuppetry and a reasonable basis to suspect a connection between several accounts. We might be guided more strongly by simple assertions if the filer is an administrator we know, but even in those cases we'll often come back and ask for some specific evidence before endorsing/performing a check - unless we've had time to make that sort of review ourselves, in which case we don't ask for duplicate effort from the filer. I know that if I review contributions to verify assertions, I don't then list specific diffs in the case - at most a general description of my findings.

Procedurally your case was set apart in that there was an apparent "confession", a reasonable but somewhat shaky basis for suspicion, and Elonka had stated an intent to issue further blocks. It seemed prudent to ask for a checkuser to prove that the blocks performed were correct and determine whether others were necessary. Sometimes I'll ask for a check to verify a determination made by a blocking administrator, especially if I think the grounds weren't terribly strong. Hope that helps, feel free to ask more questions. Nathan^T 18:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I will note that the apparent confession was by only one of the (I think) five users who were supposedly my sockpuppets. In the cases of the other four - Trickyjack and the three IPs - there was no evidence proferred at all, at least not that I saw. Yet Elonka asked for them all to be bundled into the CU, and that request was approved and acted upon. This is the root of my concern about a "fishing expedition" in the case. It's a shame Elonka has yet to comment, as this is the point on which she could be most helpful in resolving this. Irvine22 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerks

Regarding the advertisement for clerks, I've decided that I want to help out. Per Beeblebrox's talk page, Skype, Gmail's chat or Windows Live Messenger would suit me, but if there are other instant messaging places that would be better, tell me. I'll give it a go learning it. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thejadefalcon. Shoot me an e-mail via EmailUser using your g-mail account and we'll chat? Nathan^T 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. But it's getting late, so we'll have to do it tomorrow. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "aspirational userboxesboxes"

I understand the way you intended to display the service awards you wished to achieve at User:Nathan/template, however they were commented out because the whay they are currently phrased is fraudulent as no editor is yet capable of being a vanguard editor or higher please consider revising the grammatical syntax to future tense. thanks Koman90 A+ (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think fraudulent is a pretty strong word to use, when they're noted as "aspirational". I'm sure you have better things you could be doing with your time. Nathan^T 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nathan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supriyya.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tommy Möller

Hi! In your vote on Tommy Möller [4] You refer to Ironholds and Casliber. Both claim that Tommy Möller fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. However, as the debate shows if you read the comments to the votes, the fact is that he does not. You are therefore voting keep on incorrect grounds. Is that intentional? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The notability guideline is a guideline, and not the end-all-be-all of deletion debates. Reading the article and the discussion up to the point where I registered my opinion, it seemed reasonable that Moller was known enough for an article given the wide spectrum of articles that already exist under "wp:academic." I realize that the needle has moved a bit on these in the last two weeks, but I didn't account for that in my vote.

Once Bishonen and Hegvald came in with a great deal more information and insight, my opinion changed. You might take that as a handy tip: well researched points and useful insight are much more effective as debate strategies than purely argumentative comments about one's interpretation of a guideline. Nathan^T 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPA revisions

I have edited the essay on SPAs. I want to make sure the essay stays neutral so I am asking members who made comments on the talk page to review the changes and make suggestions on the talk page. As the article stood the identifying SPAs ran like a long dialog that had nothing to do with the title "identifying SPAs". I did not delete anything, but added a new subsection above it addressing identification more specifically. The common misuses section lists misuses specified in the 2009 discussions that did not seem to be disagreed with (except the user page one was not brought up, but thats probably because it is so obvious). There is also a discussion of potential other misuses that could be added to the list but are slightly more controversial, and hence I did not add them immediately, but rather am looking for consensus first.MATThematical (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Robert C. Michelson

I see that last year you suggest that {{user:Firewall]] might be Michelson himself, and Firewall suggested that he might be a relative. However, take a look at [5]. I'm a bit annoyed by this discovery, as he's been creating and continues to edit articles where he seems to have a clear COI. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was clear then, and understood during our exchange, that Firewall was Michelson himself. His alternate theory of provenance for the images read to me as more of a debating tactic than an actual suggestion that he was a relative (unless you're referring to other comments that I don't recall). I'm not sure if he ever followed through on OTRS. After some editing the article wasn't in terrible shape, so I didn't feel the need to keep on him. I haven't looked at it recently, however, and the situation may have changed. Nathan^T 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerks

I put in my name, got set up on IRC, and no one responded to me. Since then, another clerk was taken on. Can I get a response on whether you will take me or not? This is where I feel I can really make a contribution; I have a "feel" for it. Please consider my request. Auntie E. (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you haven't heard from anyone yet; I think I mentioned on the page that the individual clerks select their trainees. I haven't been editing much lately, I don't know that I'm in a position to take on a trainee. In fact I think many of the full clerks have been somewhat inactive at SPI recently, partly because our recent batch of trainees has been so successful. If you check with NuclearWarfare, PeterSymonds and MuZemike and don't get a positive response, drop another note here. I think I could make an effort to be around more consistently in order to ensure you were properly trained. Nathan^T 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I spoke to MuZemike, and he says he might have room. Ping him on IRC or on his talkpage and work out the details? Nathan^T 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Auntie E. (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopening an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highyack07

Hello, I caught a user editting his userpage to reflect highyack07's userpage. When I contacted the Admin who closed this case to reopen it, he asked me to read the SPI page. I tried to figure how to reopen but am missing the boat. Could you please look at the talkpage and reopen the case?--Morenooso (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I asked another clerk who did not know how to do it either. This is way above my pay grade.--Morenooso (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to reopen the case per se; just add a new report. On the main SPI page (WP:SPI) there is a launcher button that preloads all the correct templates. If it doesn't work, post on WT:SPI asking for assistance and if I don't get to it I'm sure someone else will. Nathan^T 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop it.--Morenooso (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anna Goldfeder.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I know it can be difficult for people reviewing images to actually look at the images, the context they are used in, and pick up on the more obvious rationales (like the person is dead, and there is no other photo). I appreciate that you took the time to leave me a templated message, and I understand that adding the most basic of rationales would have been more work than I or anyone could expect. While I imagine you won't come back to read responses left to your automated messages, I just want you to know I'm grateful someone out there is doing the dirty work of deleting useful content wherever possible. Nathan^T 04:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanger

I was very impressed by this comment addressed to Larry Sanger. It's tough to present such harsh criticism without being unnecessarily impolite, and I appreciate your tone. Further, I think your underlying point is entirely valid. While I disagree with Sanger's general stance to obscenity, it is his tactics that I find truly objectionable. Rvcx (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quinton Hoover

Hello,

I am letting you know that Quinton Hoover has been nominated for deletion again, as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists, as you participated in the previous AFD for Quinton Hoover. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

tks

Tks for the kind words! Ling is irrevocably dead. I dunno if I'll return later, maybe or maybe not. But thanks again. (please don't reply on my User talk; I'm only leaving a message here 'cause you don't have email enabled). Later! Ling.Nut.Email.Only (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Remember the Global Economics class project?

It's up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics. I'm notifying people who particpated on the talk pages there. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

I am not sure if you are supporting the move of the image here [6]? Maybe you want to move these comments to the discussion section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I support removing the image altogether. I guess it doesn't fit nicely in any section, but to the extent that I think the supporters are motivated by a desire to make the image go away, I guess I'm in that column if for different reasons. Nathan^T 03:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Geogre edit distribution.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Geogre edit distribution.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Nathan. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No news is good news but

my best wishes for the New Year, friend. No need to reply Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Nathan,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)