User talk:Tnxman307/Archive 13

Vandal?

Do you feel User talk:72.177.120.163 displays sufficient attempt by others to explain our policies to the user? I'm not saying the edits are appropriate, but how is a new user to know what's appropriate without being pointed in the right direction? Ironically, I was placing a WP:FRIENDLY welcome tag while you were blocking.  Frank  |  talk  15:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP was asked to stop several times on their talk page. Furthermore, their contribution history shows ongoing disruption at Laurie David and Judy Collins since June. While I am certainly all for welcoming new editors, this IP jumped right in with a combative attitude that hasn't changed, even after a previous 24 hour block. TNXMan 15:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should be addressing User:Duke53. Your block identified actions that clearly took place: POV-pushing and edit warring, and which were mentioned in the August note. Alas, Duke53 reported vandalism. Subtle difference, and perhaps wiki-lawyering on my part, but sometimes I think we (as a community) do play a part in encouraging disruptive editing with our arcane rules. I don't see anywhere this user has had policies explained. In particular, I'm thinking of WP:V and WP:CITE. But again, there's a better venue than your talk page.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

Last week you performed a checkuser based on this ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Organized_promotional_effort/Taj_Pharmaceuticals. Would you mind taking a look at User:Bullmedia9988 who created a similar article yesterday? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed that ShantanuSingh198 (talk · contribs) = Bullmedia9988 (talk · contribs). If you have a moment, can you reopen the SPI case so that we can have an official record? TNXMan 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no SPI case to reopen. Should I start one? Deli nk (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I apologize, I thought there was an SPI. I think it would be good to open one anyway, because it would allow us to track everything in one place. In any case, thanks for staying on top of this. Cheers! TNXMan 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've done it right considering the checkuser has been done already, but here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShantanuSingh198. Thanks for your help. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i just made account and wante to mess around so lol sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullsbud (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rapid return?

Hi. There seems to be some quacking coming from Editorika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whose second edit was to the talk page of currently blocked sock master User:Alexey-spb and whose first article space edits have corresponded:[1]; [2]...[3]; [4]. Is this worth bothering with checkuser? Is the quacking sufficient? Should we wait for more duck noises? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, looks like a quack to me - showing up right as the autoblock for the first account wore off, same Mehdi Hosseini focused edits, etc. . My question is what to do with the main account. The options seems to be to jump the block up to indef from two weeks, reset the timer, or extend it. TNXMan 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe reset it this time and chalk him up as a lost cause if he does it again? I'll watchlist those articles and remove those edits as a blocked contributor evading block. If they return, we'll know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a winner to me. Thanks for catching them/him (it?). I'll keep an eye out as well. TNXMan 23:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to work out some copyright issues with him, and it's been frustrating. :/ He seems to be well meaning, but he's just intent on doing it his own way. I offered to find him a translator, but I'm not sure if there's a language problem here or just an issue with WP:HEARing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion by User:Amir.Hossein.7055

This guy seems to have changed tactics somewhat. He is now editing as an IP here, but uploading images to Commons and re-adding them to the articles edited by him here on WP previously. He currently seems to edit as User:80.191.41.237. This IP consistently goes through the articles where immediately preceding edits were by User:Amir.Hossein.7055's socks, e.g. Jafar Sharif-Emami‎, Gholam-Reza Azhari, Shapour Bakhtiar, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, List of Prime Ministers of Iran, etc. He often adds images that he has uploaded to Commons under the same usernames as his socks user here on WP, eg. this edit[5] and this image[6]. I don't know if some sort of a rangeblock is feasible for the IP range that he is using, maybe you could look into that? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Moonriddengirl caught it. If something else comes up, let me know. TNXMan 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the rangeblock was not sufficiently effective. Two new IPs have just popped up who started to restore his previous edits: User:85.198.7.95 and User:85.198.7.37. Nsk92 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they're blocked. The rangeblock was implemented at 10:47 this morning, the last edit from either of those two addresses is at 10:46 (and none since). TNXMan 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Workywords

You beat me to it, I'd discovered it was copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Beep, beep!. TNXMan 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

1. What does a checkuser do. I have read the pages, but I don't understand the process that s/he takes to come the the conclusion that the accounts are(n't) sock-puppets.
2. What do the people look for in the candidates for checkuser?

Thanks, --intelati^(Call) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, let me point you to WP:Checkuser, which sums everything up. In a nutshell, the checkuser tool allows access to the IP and user agent information of named accounts. This allows two or more accounts to be compared to determine if they are operated by the same person. Sometimes this is easy. Other times, it can be very difficult to determine a match (for example, what if someone edits from both home and work?).

As for becoming a checkuser, it is not an easy thing to do. A review of the process of becoming one is on this page. Formerly, Checkusers were appointed, then there were elections, and the last round was a sort of election/appointment hybrid. I hope this answers your questions. TNXMan 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--intelati^(Call) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr Bert

Hi , Bert M. Petersen, do you think he is noteworthy enough for a BIO? Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was really considering that when I was going through the article. I'm leaning towards "no". What's your opinion? TNXMan 20:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed some of the externals as they were showing as attack sites on my browser, I just checked the two citations and they are showing as the same? Is it my browser or what, have you clicked on the cites? ec, I don't think he is noteworthy enough to warrant a BLP and the writer who appears to have a connection to the subject has also commented that the subject would also support deletion - although that is an unconfirmed request. Heres the google diagnostic for the remaining two citations.Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Nominated for deletion discussion through AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll comment there when I have a moment. TNXMan 11:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Lavine

No spam from Patch.com (online news website). All items are appropriately sourced.

Eyespy4you (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

No, patch.com is not a reliable source and should not be used as one in a Wikipedia article. I've also gone through the article, trimming a lot of tangential material, and removing a lot of promo/POV material as well. TNXMan 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How does Patch.com's professional editorial advisory board not make this website a reliable source? I ask for a third party review.Eyespy4you (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Professional editorial advisory board? At this particular patch site (Glen Cove, NY), their "advisory board" includes, among others, a high school senior, a newspaper intern, an amateur photographer, and more "freelance writers" than you can shake a stick at (source). Hardly a professional anything. TNXMan 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Phil Meyer is Professor Emeritus in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and "Jeff Jarvis is the associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s new Graduate School of Journalism." It appears that they have oversight of all Patch.com content. Eyespy4you (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Where do you see that? I don't see it on the Glen Cove site, which is the one you're trying to use. TNXMan 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgoing discussion copied to Talk:Charles_Lavine#Patch.com_as_reliable_source for purpose of giving a Third Opinion there. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the information: "Patch is run by professional editors, writers, photographers and videographers who live in or near the communities we serve, and is supported by a great team in our New York City headquarters. Patch also gets advice from our Editorial Advisory Board and from many members of the community." Phil Meyer and Jeff Jarvis are part of their "Editorial Advisory Board." Eyespy4you (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you

Yes, for the main patch site, not for the specific Glen Cove site. The editors for this site are college graduates, nothing more or less (although one did intern for a newspaper, which doesn't count for much).

As a further point, "letters to the editor" or "open letters to such-and-such" are not encyclopedic and should not be included. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish rants from the general public. TNXMan 22:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my SPI entry. Those forms are sometimes difficult for those of us that don't use them regularly. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any questions about SPI, just let me know. TNXMan 15:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating the situation and determining that User:Welchs12 is a sockpuppet. Will you or another admin be blocking that editor? The person is still editing. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've marked the case for admin attention. I generally do not block users which I have checked, as I try to separate "judge" and "jury" functions of checkuser. If you know any active admins, you may be able to flag them down. TNXMan 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate the help. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Alaaan

I see that you denied his unblock. One of his edits was to falsely deny an unblock for Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anything going on there that should make me hesitate to unblock Iluvrihanna24 if he agrees to source his edits?—Kww(talk) 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what led me to investigate in the first place! Iluvrhianna24 appears to be  Unrelated to Alaan. Alaan, however, does have a few other accounts floating around (all blocked). Cheers. TNXMan 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS

Sorry to bother you from reality, but it looks like Mr or Miss (I know girls named Georgie) Gibbons has returned. [7] Susan AndersonWP (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the (recent) past?

Hi - if it's not too much trouble, would you mind taking a look at User:Fookjian95 (who is also self acknowledged to be Special:Contributions/60.51.24.15) , with reference to User_talk:Tnxman307/Archive_10#Her631_SPI and this SPI Archive, to see if I'm imagining that quacking noise... Thanks  Begoon•talk 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary investigating, but keep getting pulled away. In the meantime, would you mind opening a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Her631? It will help keep everything in one place. Hopefully, I look into this in more depth later today. Thanks! TNXMan 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I should have been less lazy, and done that to start with.  Begoon•talk 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your note at the SPI - thanks for that, if the data is stale, not much you can do. Appreciate your quick response, and sorry to bother you again.  Begoon•talk 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

User:Orionwebmuseum

Tnxman - why was this user usernameblocked? In what way is their username offensive? As far as I can tell based on a google search, there is no such museum, and I didn't see this user linking to any website. Besides, why was account creation blocked? I thought username blocks were not conduct-based. This user has contributed two poorly styled but good-faith-looking articles about jade along with many photographs. I don't see any spamming in the articles nor are there any deleted contributions. I am at a loss for an explanation: why you have come down so hard on this seemingly good-faith contributor. -- Y not? 16:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this site and their Twitter account (which matches their account name), it was pretty clear what was going on. Their webpage indicates the Wikipedia article they created is "Another Internet Exhibition Gallery". I hope this explains my reasoning, but please let me know if you have questions. TNXMan 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Would you delete those articles and photos under G11 then? -- Y not? 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI Case_edu

Hi, are these accounts to be blocked, they are disrupting a couple of AFDs. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must recuse myself from blocking them. As the checkuser who identified the accounts, I don't feel comfortable blocking them as well - I try keep separate the "judge" and "jury" aspects of CU. I've left a note at AN about the backlog at SPI. If you know any active admins that want to help out, I'd be happy to answer any questions they may have. TNXMan 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, if I come across one I will let him or her know, thanks for your work. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All sorted, impressive work and thanks again.Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. TNXMan

I'll take you up on that "answering questions" offer, Tnxman307. SPI is the one area I really thought I'd be active in post-RfA, and to date I've done ... well, nothing. So if you can point me at a reading list that would be appreciated. TFOWR 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! The first page is obviously the sockpuppet policy. The second page is the admin instructions. To sum up really - are the accounts the same person (obviously, CU can help clear this up)? If so, does the use of these accounts violate WP:SOCK? If this is also true, then the accounts can be blocked. That's the quick and dirty version. I'd be happy to help answer any questions that come up as you look over the pages. TNXMan 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added to my socky reading list, and I will have questions ;-) TFOWR 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, getting started with WP:SPI is never a bad thing. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Verified User

Hello Tnxman! I realized that you contribute heavily at open proxies, I also realized that you are in fact an administrator here. I was wondering, would i be able to become a verified user to make sure IP's that are reported are in fact proxies? I'm a computer networking genius and i know all about networking (changing your IP Address, etc.) you name it, i know it. Also, if you've noticed, i've been contributing heavily at the project. If i cannot become a verified user, please let me know the requirements as i am interested. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could say I knew more about the process. I only began contributing there recently and I don't feel I know enough to make a recommendation one way or another. The two people who I saw contributing there before I did were User:Gordonrox24 and User:Zzuuzz. I think they would be better equipped to answer your question about being a verified user. If there are any other questions, though, please let me know. TNXMan 01:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hey, I've checked over all the IP addresses listed on the page and made comments. If you could, please review them and take action as necessary. In case you're curious, I just ran a scan on all of the common proxy ports to determine if they're a proxy (yes, I know some subpage of the project says not to do that, but that's the way people verify proxies in the real world), checked for the proxy against all DNS blacklists available (automatic of course) and did a Google to see what others had to say. In short, I didn't list the proxies there as proxies because they show up on a blacklist, they've actually been scanned - the blacklist information is just something extra. Oh, just to let you know, I'm not a verified user, I just dropped by to help after seeing the massive backlog. Netalarm^talk 22:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I've only recently begun contributing there, so I'm still feeling my way forward. Thanks for helping! TNXMan 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope

I do not believe the user is Franklin at least IP is not in his location. I believe user:Iyow2 should be checked against IP, but even, if the user has a different IP, than IP does, I do not believe user:Iyow2 is Franklin. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, you were right!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoodTeacher7

I really hate to say anything--because the accused user is so demonstrably inexperienced with our project--but yet another highly suspicious SPA has arrived on the scene of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1stChoice FTPPro. And based on my analysis, I'm about ninety-nine percent certain that it is the same person as before. Terrible shame to lose a potential contributor over something this petty.   — C M B J   05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, the new account appears technically  Unrelated. TNXMan 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The user may be using a proxy then, because:

1. The user says "Thank you, and God Bless!", but Sister Mary Catherine is a parody name that would most reasonably contradict such a statement
2. The user, again, did not format their AfD comment in a typical manner
3. The user attempted to explain their actions in advance on their talk page, as did GoodTeacher7
4. The user(s) both claim to be a very specific credible character. The first is a social studies teacher, the second is by implication a Catholic nun
5. The user explains a rationale similar to GoodTeacher7: "I am adding the article for 1stChoice FTPPro to show my social studies students how easy it is to create a new Wikipedia article." versus "As an experiment, I am editing an article for a program that I've used for 10 years (1st Choice FTPPro) ... I will report the results of this experiment in my blog"
6. The user proposes that a conspiracy is being orchestrated by the Wikipedia community, as did Christinebentenflas. Compare "Now, it will only contain products that are endorsed by Wikipedia editors. Seems like bias to me" with "It appears that virtually all new articles are being deleted by a small group of full-time editors"
7. Lastly, the AfD's subject matter is so rare that it is difficult to even find a screenshot on Google. There was not one single legitimate contributor that argued in favor of keeping the article--let alone with such passionate interest

I don't believe that the individual is a big problem in general, which is why I defended him/her from being blocked in the first place. Nonetheless, it remains clear to me that these two users are the same person. The only other explanation would be meatpuppetry, and I have serious doubts that two separate people could inadvertently share such signature behavior. I'll leave it up to you as for what to do from here.   — C M B J   20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Account Deletion

Hello,

I recently attempted to create a page for the company in which I work for, only to have it immediately taken down. I was hoping to have the account reinstated as I would like to attempt to create a page that falls within Wikipedia's guidelines. The purpose of creating the page is to give a background of the company and some basic info not to simply promote it.

An example of a page we would like to resemble is: Netsuite

Any help in ensuring that my page meets guidelines would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Michaelangelo (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The key to existence in Wikipedia is notability. Try finding sources that allows you to prove the notability of you company. For example, try to find news papers talking about your company, or books. Areas in which companies tend to be notable are economic, your company is quite big and rules the marked in some area; or introduced interesting services or technology and there are sources talking about your company doing so. Ah, the sources should be a third party. Not, Wikipedia, not someone from/ related to your company. If you manage to do so then you will be able to support the existence of the article. Another thing. I think it is a conflict of interests that you are creating an article about your company. You will have to be extra careful about bias in the article. A hint, avoid adjectives (put 9 feet tall instead of very tall). I don't think the conflict of interests forbids you from creating the article altogether (I am not sure) but it certainly creates some difficulties. Iyow2 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the nature and quality of Netsuite#References. That might help. Iyow2 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proxies

Regarding 160.79.35.17 and 144.140.162.6, I'm still having difficulty connecting to them (or detect proxies for that matter). Just to make sure my proxy detecting skills aren't getting rusty, could you explain how you connected to them? I've tried typing the IP into the address bar and connecting to them as a Socks5 proxy, but I've been unsuccessful. One of them shows 403 access denied, and the other one times out. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried connecting to them as an HTTP proxy? I connected to the second one just now on port 80. The first one, though, I don't think is open. I wasn't able to connect through my address bar and a Google search didn't turn up an open ports.

I generally run through a few steps when I detect proxies (and these are only what I could glean from the instruction page - I hope their right!). First I try to connect to the proxy directly (address bar). If that doesn't work, I'll Google the IP. Usually if an IP is hosting a proxy, the internet knows about it and has posted the port through which you can connect. If I find an open port, I'll adjust my browser settings to connect there. If I can connect and get to Wikipedia, I consider it open. I hope this helps! TNXMan 11:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Franklin &co possibly using a work address to harass Mbz1

Hi, I notice you were involved in the last CU involving User:Grapebowl and other socks. I notice that this diff implies that they are posting from work. That, of course, might be bullshit, but in view of the persistent harassment of Mbz1, then if this is a work address being used, it might be worth complaining to the computer abuse or personnel department there.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it might. Next time it comes up (and I have a sneaking suspicion it will), I'll be sure to check that possibility. TNXMan 14:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Malizia Clinic pics

You deleted two jpg files: Malizia-clinic-CT-imaging-suite.jpg and Malizia-clinic-exterior.jpg

These files were not copyright violations. They are pics from my personal collection which were not used on the Malizia Clinic site. I am a friend of the marketing dir. at the clinic and those pics are mine. Please check again. The pics are part of that same set, but they are unpublished. If you look carefully at malizia.org, you will see that the ones I uploaded were not the same as the ones on the site. Thank you. 1weezie23 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI against LemonMonday

Hi, you've closed the SPI against LemonMonday with the reasoning that LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now.

• What does "for now" mean?
• Coren states it is "technically unlikely" but that the behavioral evidence is strong - my understanding is that Behavioral evidence is the primary criteria for deciding on socking. Am I wrong?
• What will happen (if anything) when LemonMonday eventually returns?
• Is the data on MidnightBlueMan, Mister Flash, and the other socks stale by now making it difficult/impossible

As the main target of this editor and his various socks, I'm surprised that this account wasn't confirmed based on the behavioural evidence alone, and based on the history of knowledge-of-how-to-evade-detection exhibited by the other accounts. --HighKing (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I mainly closed it because the investigation was open for a month with no action taken. This doesn't mean action cannot be taken. :The "for now" simply meant that a) it was possible that LemonMonday was a unrelated contributor and the SPI caused him to disappear or b) LemonMonday is a sockpuppet and is hiding. Since no one stepped forward to block the account based on the current behavioral evidence, I marked the case for close with the hope that future behavioral evidence will be enough for an admin to block the account. My suggestion (since SPI can be overlooked by admins) is to open a thread at AN or ANI and ask admins to review the case. See if anyone thinks the evidence presented is enough to make a block. I hope this helps and please let me know if you have questions. TNXMan 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, ta. The case appears to have been closed from apathy :-) - an SPI should primarily deal with behavioural evidence and not rely solely on CU data. The behavioural evidence is very strong - as was also commented by the clerks. So why wasn't the account blocked? Perhaps because this topic touches on the dreaded "British Isles" topic - perhaps not. An ANI is too much drama - you can already see the ...interference... on this filing from a certain group of editors. And I suspect an ANI would simply bounce this back to SPI. It's extremely frustrating. --HighKing (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on an article I posted,

I am working on a history of modern stand-up comedy from 1979 till today. In the process I realized that one of the comedians/agents I have researched was referenced in bio's of several other comedians but there was no independent article. I attempted to use no copyrighted material. Was there any other reason for the deletion. The article was on comedian/ agent Bill Sohonage. Would I be able to revise or get a copy of the deleted article? Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy Romage (talk • contribs)

I can do that for you. Please, however, read our guide to writing your first article, advertising, and our policy on copyright violations - the article you posted read like it was cut/pasted from another source. If you have any questions, please let me know. Your article is at User:Wendy Romage/Sandbox. TNXMan 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what specifically was improper about this article, was the one quote too long?Wendy Romage (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy unblock

Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. TNXMan 17:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of White Russian (cocktail)

I see you semi-protected White Russian (cocktail) because of excessive vandalism. From the edits it appears to me to be an edit war between an IP and an autoconfirmed user. The IP was adding unsourced material in good faith and the autoconfirmed user was reverting it an calling it vandalism. The material has since been added back in by a different autoconfirmed user with a source. I see no reason for the semi-protection, do you? ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks like the editor in question woke up after a year-long hiatus to make the reversion. It also looks like Eekster made the initial revert as well. Things are a little confusing, so I think it would be best to hash it out on the talk page first. TNXMan 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the editor coming out of a year+ hiatus to add the information back in is suspicious. That doesn't change the fact that the information added to the article in the first place was not vandalism. The editor that originally asked for the protection is calling all kinds of good faith edits concerned with this situation, vandalism. After you protected the page, the IP attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page and BLGM5 reverted that attempt as vandalism, which it clearly was not. I attempted to explain what vandalism was on BLGM5's talk page and my attempt was reverted as vandalism and an IP's attempt was treated the same way. I still see no reason why this article should have been protected in the first place, no vandalism occurred. Since the edit in question has been re-added with a citation and the other editor involved in the edit war has edited since without reverting, it looks like the matter is closed. I think the article should be un-protected. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty solid summary. I've lifted the protection. TNXMan 11:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)