User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tnxman307. 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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indianbiographer

Hey Tnxman, after re-reading the headnote to section about stale accounts, I see what you mean. Is that the end of it? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the reviewing admin may still choose to take action on the IP. At the least, we have a record of the activity in case the accounts become active again. I hope this answers your question, but please let me know if you have more. TN X Man 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But--correct me if I'm wrong--whatever edits the IP made are not by themselves actionable, as far as I can tell (they're not vandalism or anything like that). Could an IP be deemed a sock puppet of an established but stale account and thus be reprimanded? I know from previous SPIs that IPs connected to CU-confirmed masters and socks are sometimes temporarily blocked, but without a CU that couldn't be established in this case, no? Sorry for taking up your time, but I find this interesting (this is the third SPI I've gone through recently), and I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the IP isn't really a "sock" (i.e. an second account used to avoid scrutiny, vandalize, evade blocks, etc.), but rather is just an editor failing to log in. None of the accounts you listed have been blocked, so it's not block evasion. They're not vandalizing, so that's out as well. The best course of action here, I think, is to remind the editor that they can edit anonymously if they wish, but they will run in to issues if they try to split their edits between logged-in and logged-out. TN X Man 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Userfy 2 pages for me

Saw your name skirt down the recent changes page, and I need admin help. I was wondering if you could userfy two deleted articles for me, they are Edgelake Plaza and Lakeview Plaza? If it can be done, that would be wonderful; Userfying them to User:Marcusmax/Lakeview and User:Marcusmax/Edgelake would be optimal. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. TN X Man 20:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gracias -Marcusmax(speak) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:MadeRecords

Hey, i noticed you blocked the User:Maderecords, he has made a new username and contacted me regarding pages I have worked on for the band iiO whom he represents. He wanted me to help him out to edit them and has been doing them himself as well. Just curious even under an alias isn't that a conflict of interest? His current username is User:MisterPrez10019. Hassan514 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Parent5446

In the event it's important; the user has left this response to your unblock decline. Regards Tiderolls 03:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I also feel like saying that I have mostly known User:Parent5446 as a responsible contributor (especially across Avatar: The Last Airbender articles) and I hope this mess can be cleared up so maybe he can be unblocked. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Check-usery/sock kind of question :)

Hi. I've just blocked a series of socks based on behavioral evidence here and a Swedish SPI, including checkuser results. (See ANI report) The person who brought the issue has requested a block of an IP that is shared. Behavioral evidence supports his conclusion that it is solely used by the same contributor, as the same patterns of behavior are evident, but I'm certianly not comfortable with the kind of block he requests, and I'm not sure if even an anon-only block would be overkill. You being all Mr. Experienced with socks, I thought I'd ask your advice and check to see if you thought a sleeper check would be worthwhile. This is no casual sockpuppeteer, but a freshly blocked admin on Swedish Wikipedia with at least three confirmed socks that have been in action for years. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They are indeed the same person and I don't see any sleepers. I can handle the IPs as well (but can't disclose connections to named accounts, per the privacy policy). Also, can I add "Mr. Experienced" to my userpage? :) Cheers! TN X Man 14:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Have at it. It is a well-deserved title. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PromisesWeKeep

Hey. With regards to this case, could you really quickly tell if Nhallisey (talk · contribs) is related? Their only edits are on the exact same page, and I'm suspicious. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible based solely on technical data. TN X Man 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll hold off on that account just yet, as I'm not quite convinced either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop Vandalizing the Port Chester, NY page and DO NOT threaten other users

Wikipedia's policy is clear on allowing links to media sources, and in fact Wikipedia depends on media sources as part of its criteria for attributing information in articles.

What you term "spam" is links to legitimate local media that are institutions in the local community. As you are not a member of the local community, and Wikipedia's rules are clear in this regard, repeatedly removing these links is tantamount to vandalism. You have not given a legitimate reason to remove the links other than your arbitrary determination that they're "spam."

In addition, I am reporting you for threatening to remove editing access. This is exactly the sort of behavior that gives Wikipedia a bad name and discourages people from contributing.

Stormstrike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry you disagree. However, creating link farms is discouraged. Furthermore, adding links to non-notable (that is, they have no related Wikipedia article) is also discouraged. Finally, I would not block you myself, as that is not permitted. TN X Man 13:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:AN3

Hello Tnxman307. Please see WP:AN3#User:Tnxman307 reported by User:Stormstrike (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on it- please let me know if my input is required (I'm not very familiar with AN3! :) ). TN X Man 12:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the report. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a block review

Please see User_talk:Mamikonian, as I would appreciate some further input from you over the checkuser information and if it is conclusive enough if there is IMHO little edit history corroboration. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-ran the check and can confirm that Harry Tudor (talk · contribs)=Konakonian (talk · contribs)=Mamikonian (talk · contribs)=SecondCrusader (talk · contribs)=LoveActresses (talk · contribs). I believe that Jpgordon, who is also a checkuser, confirmed this as well when he reviewed Harry Tudor's unblock request (just from looking at the checkuser logs, I have not spoken with him, though). I hope this helps. TN X Man 03:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Card

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010

Signing to enable archiving. TN X Man 03:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer

Hey. Just as a point of note, CBuilother isn't a registered account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! TN X Man 03:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just sent you an email about this case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent Border Crossings edit...

Mr. T,

While I appreciate your vigilance, I think you've been a bit hasty in your editing of my modest article.

"Border Crossings" is a currently a stub, but has been slowly expanding, with references and links being added as supporting material becomes available. Most of the existing supporting information could be seen or heard by the readers themselves in the links you removed.

To address your concern about the inclusion of original research, let me assure you that I am in a unique position to report upon this subject, as I am a daily participant in the production of this very program. The original article was begun by a fan of Border Crossings, and a year later I took it over to provide more accurate information. And isn't that what Wikipedia is for?

The building of a credible Wikipedia article sometimes takes time, even in this "I want it right NOW" era, and I will be the first to admit that my formatting needs help. (I am but a humble writer and engineer.) So I really do welcome constructive changes and additions to this article, but I also really would have liked a heads-up before you decimated it.

I have restored the article and kindly ask you to let it be while it germinates, grows and becomes a full-bloomed Wiki entry.

Winch--KWWinch (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia only accepts material that is reliably sourced - that is, cited to independent third-party sources. We cannot accept original research. You should also note that it sounds like you have a conflict of interest with the subject. You should read our guide on what to do when you have a conflict of interest. TN X Man 03:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My signature

Why should my signature be wrong? I just copied it from my Dutch signature. If you can explain to me why it isn't allowed, then I'll change it. User:TBloemink/Signature 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Because images, such as a .svg file, are not permitted in signatures on the English Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are transcluding a template as your signature. Please note that this is not allowed. If you have any questions about changing your signature to be more in line with the correct usage, just drop me a line

Give me a link, on which page are signature rules about images? Well, I'll delete it, but I do not agree with it.

TBloemink_{service desk} 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. But about the template, that's weird, because on this wikipedia that is allowed, to minimize text on pages... TBloemink_{service desk} 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Every project has its own rules and policies :-) Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins is correct on both counts - both images and templates are not permitted on the English Wikipedia. This doesn't mean your signature has to be boring, though! There are a lot of interesting signatures out there - you just have to be a little more creative when you make them. If you have questions about it, I'd be happy to help answer them. TN X Man 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On trustworthiness

Hello,

In the future please be aware that you can trust 99% of people to do what they say they're going to do. You can certainly trust me.

Best regards,

Egg Centric (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Labidalove

While they were hardly behaving perfectly an indefinite block seems a little harsh and bitey. They hadn't even been given a level 3 warning, and while POV several of their edits looked to be in good faith. I was about to give them a level 2 warning for something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And actually if you look at their edit times they hadn't been given a single warning until the same minute as their last edit, so they were essentially blocked without any warnings at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Their first three edits were this, this, and this. I see no reason to believe they were here for any other reason than to be disruptive. TN X Man 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking new users (let alone indefinitely) without giving them any warnings at all isn't remotely fair. They cannot reasonably be expected to know the rules straight up. The first two edits are rather POV, but they may not realise that isn't appropriate, and the third could have been them getting confused about an edit conflict. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lila Rose

There is some edit-warring (and on 3RR) going on on this page and I would like to push the two doing it to the talkpage. Could you full-protect the article for 24 hours to push people to the talk page to talk it out? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like neither has edited the article since your warnings. I'll keep an eye on it to see what develops - further tug-of-war will result in protection and/or blocks. Thanks for catching this. TN X Man 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to prevent the blocks of the editors as long as possible and go for protection. Looks like they are talking and I will monitor it as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wish the one user wouldn't have done this, but it might get settled by a block, see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

reliable source

I plan on adding content to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

regarding raids carried out by the islamic prophet muhammad.

i once used this book, but noticed reference to it was remove for 2 major reasons

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FhjPV9mVnNEC&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q&f=false

1. I directly copied certian text from that book (leading to copyvio) 2. The author is not considered notable by some contributors.

I want to know whether i would be able to use the source (given above) as a reference for material or opinions i add?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princedj485

Hey. Sorry to bug you, but you listed two accounts, Wind Convergence and PhillipinesUSA - but those aren't accounts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for catching that. "Wind Convergence" was the name of one of the articles involved. TN X Man 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock 82.230.146.52

Thank you, i can finally edit English wikipedia from my home ! Great day ;-) Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javyer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting advice on how to handle a editor who is making off-topic disparaging remarks

I do appreciate any advice you can offer. A while back I was blocked by another admin, and you reviewed the case and overturned the block, with a caution to take care to avoid edit war situations, which I have diligently observed (see Talk:Taco Bell).

My issue is this, we're discussing a move of the Jared Lee Loughner page to just Jared Loughner (discussion link). Everyone in the discussion has for the most part been very considerate, but a certain editor, Mr.grantevans2, has decided suddenly to mention the block incident, and is suggesting "that is worth taking into consideration when evaluating your opinions within this dialogue and maybe 1 or 2 other Editors might want to know about it as well".

In essence, its being used as a tool to cast me in a bad light. I honesty don't see how it is relevant at this point. Yes, it is on my Talk page, but my feedback and explanations are there also, so I don't mind, because it gives context to the incident. To simply throw it into the middle of a name change discussion without context seems wrong to me.

I'm not very familiar with how to lodge a complaint, and I've been reviewing the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page, but I really just want to get things back on topic and hopefully get this editor to understand that ad hominem attacks are not the right approach. I can't help that I was a bit ignorant of the Wikipedia convention, and made a mistake, but that shouldn't mean that I have to defend myself at every turn against an honest mistake. I am much more careful now, and I think the issue is settled.

Like I said at first, I would appreciate any advice you can give on how to deal with this situation. I don't want to do anything that will escalate the problem, I just want to be able to discuss the issues at hand, not personal attacks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Update - I found the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page and made a similar request there and a nice editor helped out. I hope things are well with you. I'm glad we have so many helpful people in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Digital Fuel, section deleted

Hi Tnxman307, I'm contacting you regarding the deletion you made on Digital Fuels Article. We are talking about a company page, that is the reason I undesrtand It should also provide information about the activity and the products the company provides, to make it more relevant and complete. So that the inclusion were neutral and objective I only include the name of the products and a very short description where relevant. You can check about Digital Fuel products in the following links of CNBC

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41366307

They are also mention in http://www.finanznachrichten.de/ http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2011-02/19239483-digital-fuel-hires-former-bmc-sap-and-mercury-product-executive-as-vice-president-of-product-management-004.htm

Below I copied the text I include a couple of days ago, I would appreciate if you can reconsider your decision Thanks in advanced,

SanTrac (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Products Digital Fuel's products fall into the following main categories:

IT Financial Management: A set of SaaS (Software as a Service) business applications that processes the cost and business value of Financial Management for IT Services (ITSM).
IT cost management
Service level management
IT Vendor Management— Gain an optimized and a control mechanism for vendor agreements that governs contractual commitments.

Talkback

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alliance for Natural Health USA wiki page

Greetings,

I am attempting to create a factual wiki page about our organization and it's specific work in the area of natural health and health freedom. I was including links to media (the washington post, trade publications) that substantiated all references in the attempted wiki entry. Our European branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_natural_health has a wiki page up I wanted to know what our was deleted before I could even finish adding text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthfreedomusa (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Tnxman, I don't want this to sound as fishing, so am placing this on your talk before logging off. I'll be able to check your reply only tomorrow. I saw a user NoAccountNameAvailable commenting on ANI. I recalled seeing the name just a few days back. A little searching got me TheLastusernameLeft, a sock of a banned user. Obviously, this could be a coincidence. That's why I came here to just kind of hand it over to you and buzz off... Thanks and talk to you later. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm on a mobile device at the moment so I can't do too much, but when I get in front of an actual computer, I'll definitely investigate. Cheers! TN X Man 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Email

Sent you an email. Sigh... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Cumminsr and Sheridan College

I am not sure that my messages to Cumminsr (talk · contribs) are being coming across in a manner that xe is able to understand and respond to. The situation may require some third party help. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot

Just querying about a bot you requested a while back to log IPBE changes. Is a raw list like this what you had in mind with the formating fixed? DQ.alt (t) (e) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks! TN X Man 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will just make a few finalizaing steps. It will overrite the comments as it sees them, so if you want to be able to put comments in, let me know. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinsen

TnXMan, you mentioned that you were going to block the two /20 ranges to start with, is it only on further disruption or do you think we could do it now? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Already done. Let me know if more disruption occurs. Thanks! TN X Man 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank. Looks ok today and Sodabottle's managed to remove hoax components from quite a few articles so far, rather painful process since this chap's been evading the radar for over a year before his first block! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Polylepsis

Hey. Just as a heads up, you listed Pruditiom - but that's not a registered account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! TN X Man 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-to-person_lending

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-to-person_lending

Hi - would you please manually review the revision undo (via TWINKLE) which you just undertook? The edits made to the overview section were for structure and clarity, eg, the graph on "momentum" (resulting from the financial crisis) now leads logically, into the (sourced) figures showing resultant growth. I realize that the automated undo was no doubt due to my removal of a referenced tag, however, as you will see, I replaced an external reference to an article only tangentially having to do with the (the global credit crunch) with an *internal* link to a more authoritative source, Wikipedia's own article on the Credit_crunch - which seems to me to provide a much better/more clear explanation of the phenomenon.

There are some other seemingly pointless references, within this Overview section, concerning the types of loans available ("references" out to external sites which I left unaltered, as I thought it easiest to correct the big picture - and let these people remain comfortable, with their "debt consolidation" or otherwise commercial-looking "references", still in place). However, I'd be happy to clean up, if you wish...

Additional to this, I will also say that "P2P Financial", while having the proper acronym in its name to be included in this article, is not now, nor was it ever, structured as a "person to person" lending site. Again, I left this misinformation to avoid confrontation but that is something which could easily be made moot by the fact that, even if this company were a "person to person lender", they were pre-dated by at least two other entities (IOU Central, which was, technically "first in Canada" (though it no longer functions), and Communitylend.com which technically was "second in Canada" (but is still in active operation). P2P Financial, too, has provided its own "reference", which ought to be removed.

Thanks for your time. I believe a quick comparative (eyeball) analysis of the current version and the undone revision will solve this issue.

I follow this space as a(n independent) financial analyst and will be happy to devote more time to improving this article - given permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.17.12.13 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at TehMissingLink's talk page.
Message added 19:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Tnxman307. You have new messages at Deli nk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocking of 84.203.0.0/17

Just a note that the 84.203.x.x range is used by the ISP Smart Telecom in Ireland. I've updated the talk page for the IP to indicate that it is an ISP range block. The block doesn't affect already-registered users (unless we forget to sign in), but it should probably be lifted. Nameless Voice (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? I'm sure most Smart customers have already given up on contributing. At this stage we have been banned for years. --Mr link (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You may of muddled 'em a bit...

Special Cases is not the sockpuppeter. In fact he is the 8th in my sock farm. I shall put them in order (slightlty) for you.

My my, a lot of socks. 92.24.118.220 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

help

Wow, outstanding work. Clearly the site was a sock, but I thought Wikipedia was too big for you to connect it with me. But why did you block Geneva Public Library, don’t you read what you delete? I’m going back to DuPage County, I’m going to try for five today.

Or.

I’m still looking for any honest, objective admin to address a few issues. I do not understand, things can’t be as bad as they appear. It appears to me that the “Gwen Gale Maffia” is to powerful to allow anything inside. If anyone contacts me outside, I will only reply if one is requested, I will not haunt you. Same for here, this is all I will send you here. Outside I am honest, that seems to be a problem inside. Remember, my actions are now an adaption to your environment, there is honor outside, at thepluton@gmail.com. Maybe thanx, see you later, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Neighbor (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Creating accounts to avoid your block will not get you anywhere, regardless of the issue for which you were originally blocked. TN X Man 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser question

I noticed on a user talk page you said "what's strange is the three of you are using the same IP and computer and have been all day". I'm not sure what you're allowed to reveal, but does that mean checkuser has access to individual MAC addresses as well as IP addresses? I ask because part of my job entails similar work, and we do not have access to MAC addresses - so, for example, multiple computers using the same broadband connection cannot be distinguished. (And with some ISPs, we can't even see past the assigned local IP hub address). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not MAC addresses, but we can see useragent info, which includes operating systems, browsers, and other similar types of information. TN X Man 18:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I did also wonder whether it might be done using tracking cookies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

How the existence of an official Youtube page and an official Facebook page is spam or promotion. I removed the link, and you STILL think it is just marketing? Please explain in DETAIL. 74.61.4.54 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the link, it's the 3kb of text you added promoting their services. That's the advertising. TN X Man 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That text was sporked from the Jackson Hewitt article and modified to fit Liberty Tax Service. 74.61.4.54 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not mean the text from Jackson Hewitt is appropriate. I've cleaned out some of the spam there as well. TN X Man 20:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

why was the user sahgrebecca deleted?

this is for my own reference Science editor 2 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no page or user by that name. I'm not sure to whom you are referring. TN X Man 14:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious IP vote

Hi there. I know that obviously this is not the official place to file a sockpuppet concern, but since you are a very active checkuser, I was wondering whether you could shed some light on this. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_featuring_crossword_puzzles, an IP, 173.79.130.26, which had previously made no edits to Wikipedia, suddenly decided to voice his or her opinion. I would have thought it unlikely that somebody who had never before edited Wikipedia by chance came across AfD, let alone such an obscure article. I was therefore wondering whether perhaps you might be able to do a quick check as to whether the IP is used by one of the accounts voting. If not, I will happily file this request someplace more formal - seeing as it's really just a hunch, I felt it a bit over the top to request an "investigation". Thanks for you help in advance. Jay-Sebastos 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, checkuser cannot publicly disclose connections between IPs and accounts, so even if it was someone voting twice, I couldn't disclose it. However, you can tag the account with {{SPA}} to bring it to the attention of the closing admin. Generally accounts/IPs that show up out of the blue to !vote in AfD's are not given much credence. I hope this answers your question and I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. TN X Man 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. Since I wrote this on your talk page, there seem to have been a rather large number of both dubious IPs and accounts adding Keep to the discussion, which, although I might be completely wrong and just paranoid, strikes me as a bit odd. Would Checkuser to be used if I raised this concern officially at WP:SPI? Thanks again. Jay-Sebastos 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the warm (well-templated) welcome. :-P In fact, I do have a question I need help with in regard to citing sources. In the section controversies in the article State of Fear, there is a quote by the New York times cited, which reads as follows: "During Crichton's testimony Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton scolded him for views that "muddy the issues around sound science" ", from this NYT article. Now the problem is, that the NY times was "stretching the truth" to say the least. Senator Clinton was addressing the chairman and his way of organizing the hearing when she said that, not Dr. Crichtons testimony, as this youtube video shows (from 0:25 to 0:35). I don't know wikipedia's policies regarding such issues, if there needs to be some consensus to have a fallacious source removed or have it labeled as unreliable. Any advice would be appreciated. ^^ --Amazeroth (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for clearing up my mistake. Much appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

How did you know this so fast? Instinct? Recent events? I'm just curious. If it is a regular vandal using these summaries, I've run into that person more than once. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Magic!. TN X Man 20:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK--but that means you have a list, or something fresh in your memory? Oh come on wizard...your secret is safe with me! Well, even if you keep your crystal ball(s) under lock and key, I'm glad you have one. Or two. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the checkuser tool keeps information on accounts' edits for a few months, so I could compare data on this user with the data on previous users of his IP range. TN X Man 20:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Listen, User:Mikeymand has been begging for an indef and I've reported them some time ago already. Do you have a second to look at their contributions? Perhaps there's a backlog at AIV. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind--HJ Mitchell took care of it. Tnxman, I think I've thanked you once or twice before for helping to keep the place clean, but here it is again: thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there are more issues, let me know - I try to keep an eye on things. TN X Man 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about a blocked user's unfinished business

Hi. Earlier today you blocked IncinerateAfterThoroughExamination (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under a checkuser tag. Before that happened, that user had started an AfD discussion here. They tagged the page, created the deletion discussion (and even notified a few users who commented in a previous discussion), but never added it to today's log. I'm in a pickle - I !voted keep already, and even modified the page in question removing a 'multiple issues' template from July 2008 that, to me, seems obviously out of date and no longer applicable.

So, my quandry - since the page isn't on the daily log, it will probably not get any attention at AfD and live in limbo. I tend to feel it's a false nomination (at best), and would lean towards reversing the nomination entirely. The other option, and possibly fair one, would be to add it to the daily log and let it run its course. I'm not an admin, and since I've already spoken out, it's probably not impartial for me to act. So, I figured I'd come to you as the blocking admin - do you know what should be done in this situation? Or should I take it to AfD's talk page? Thanks! --InkSplotch (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That article is such a mess that I'm tempted to leave the AfD tag on there and post it to the daily log. Out of all the references listed, only two point to independent sources - and they're both 404. I'll post it to the AfD log and we'll see what happens. TN X Man 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)