User talk:Kanonkas/Archive 4

Wrongly accused of sockpuppetry

I'm sorry for wrongly accusing you of sockpuppetry in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spies sappin my sentries case. I have removed your name from the investigation. My apologies.Smallman12q (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. --Kanonkas : Talk 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deleted

Hello Kanonkas, The photo that was deleted was intended to be posted as free use. I have now re-loaded it under the category of GNU free use. Allquestions (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 21:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM

[1] I granted this user rollback. I understand your concerns but the quality outweighed the tenure on this one (IMHO), and the editor's response to your remarks was particularly impressive. Just a courtesy note - hope you are okay with that. Pedro : Chat 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree & it's fine with me. One of the reasons why I didn't decline the request. Thanks for taking this one, Pedro. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Pedro : Chat 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For semi-protecting Call of Duty: World at War. You are my hero. Jolly Ω Janner 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Happy to help! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

216.17.204.77

Hello, I just reported this user and I saw your message on the AIV about them not being sufficiently warned. Just wondering if you can explain that, because they have been warned 7 times since the last time they were blocked, one month ago, including the Level 4 "Final Warning" MrShamrock (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final warning was given almost a week ago. IMO it doesn't justify blocking the IP for now. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't mean to sound rude, but that doesn't make any sense. So a person can vandalize once per week for "free" and get away with it?? What is the point of the warnings then. The fact is they have been warned many times and have continued to vandalize many times, including 7 times since the last block, more than enough evidence to justify a block MrShamrock (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not to belabour the point, but your leniency with blatant vandals is frustrating to those of us who attempt to fight vandalism. If vandals ignore numerous warnings, delaying blocking them is not solving anything. MrShamrock (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly reasonable decline. The IP is registered to a large organisation; it doesn't vandalise that much. The chances are that the vandalism is across multiple people, so a block (which won't last very long) won't serve much of a purpose. Unless there's a large level of vandalism coming from the IP in a short period of time, blocking is hardly worth the effort, because 1) it'll only stop a few edits and 2) it could block out good-faith editors. Blocks just don't and shouldn't work like that. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely, and am actually unpleasantly surprised to hear a Wikipedian say that blocking repeat vandals is "hardly worth the effort." Well, now I know that all I have to do is go to a large organization's workstation and I can gleefully vandalize to my heart's content. Good to know! MrShamrock (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a large amount of vandalism coming from the IP, then it should be blocked. But if there isn't that much activity, a block is pointless. It wouldn't last for very long anyway, so it may even expire before the IP even edits again. Ergo, a block for little recent activity defeats the purpose of blocks in the first place (we don't indef IPs, nor do we set long blocks without a history of frequent vandalism in a short space of time). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but even if a block stops one article from being vandalized, it's worth the time. And telling someone that goes out of their way to report vandalism that it's not even worth your time to do something about it is off-putting, to say the least. Even if the IP that has vandalized after numerous warnings is blocked for a short time to appease the reporter of the vandalism, then it was worth the time. MrShamrock (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

Yesterday I was wrongly accused of being two different users - whatever the actual term for it may be. I was stuck under an IP block and when I requested this to be lifted, the above response was what I was told. Very disappointed, I hoped someone would have understood that vandalising, creating a new account and then reporting the vandalism I'd just done would be absurd. Perhaps you can explain how you came to this conclusion? Casey65 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A CU confirmed my suspicion of a good/bad hand account. The above account has been blocked. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Harry - Removal of reference URL

Hi, I reverted this edit of yours. You removed a URL which was part of a reference saying

Removing external link(s). See WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM

I'm afraid I don't see which parts- if any- of these apply. This was a valid URL backing up specific facts in the article and certainly not part of a linkfarm. Its removal also left an error in the cited reference's template.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I really don't get your reasoning here. Ubcule (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! My bad for linking linkfarm in the edit summary. It was not a violation of WP:LINKFARM. The blogspot.com reference is not a reliable source. Please see verifiability, reliable sources, and external links. If you know another source then that would be helpful! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; it wasn't brilliant, but I considered it borderline acceptable. I'm not about to make a big deal of it. (I assume that the template glitch thing was an oversight). Ubcule (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No that was not an oversight. See Wikipedia:Oversight and meta for more information. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse

I saw that you were working on that case. I was looking at the list of users identified as socks, and noticed that the checkuser identified Shimpot00 (talk · contribs) which was an apparent sleeper account, as it wasn't in the initial checkuser request, and does not yet appear to have been blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the note. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for reverting that vandalism. Best, TN X Man 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image undeletion

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Have a nice day. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am SO SORRY!

Man, I just blocked you by mistake! I've unblocked you, needless to say. I was reviewing my talk page history and you were kind enough to block a coordinated attack back in January...and I wound up blocking you, thinking that you were the one who did the vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There goes my clean block log. No problem at all. We all make mistakes, just try to be a bit more careful! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 07:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I removed the autoblock. I think you forgot to remove it. --Kanonkas : Talk 08:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been worse :D -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This happened to me. Useight (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mux

Responded on the page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure. I'm monitoring the steward election anyway so I'm refreshing wikipedia too :) -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aaliyah.jpg

I can't prove it, but I don't believe "self" on that one. You know commons procedures far better than me, so your help would be appreciated.—Kww(talk) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've deleted the above image. I also found more copyright violations from the user (now deleted). Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 10:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my ANI posting.76.212.11.203 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That was not an ANI posting - I am just informing you. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

very late congrats

I wasn't around during your RfA (broken wrist), only noticed just now. Then again I don't normally vote in admin-requests here at en:, and it's not like a support vote from me would have changed anything. Wasn't excactly close that one ;) But anyways, congrats though I hope this does not mean you will spend much less time at Commons. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, hope your wrist is better now. Thanks for your message, it's appreciated. In the start of February I got a bit semi-inactive on Commons. I think I'm back again now, so no worries there! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 13:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for blocking the poor, misguided individual who vandalized my user page. Since it was their only edit, I'm sure they're a sock of someone else. Perhaps time will tell. Rivertorch (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. A single-purpose account. Happy to help. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

Can you please take a look here? I think it should be speedly deleted, right? Renanx3 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - You are right. I've deleted the image. Sorry for the late response. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 11:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Thanks for the help. Enjoy the day. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophage

User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages promote WikiLove through infiltration and by smiling on those who keep Wikipedia healthy by increasing its resistance to vandalism. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! --~~~~

It took your time, huh? Thank you for the message. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

accusation

Please remove you accusation that I have abused my email priviledges or retract the statement. I catagorically deny having emailed anyone about that election.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved on their user talk. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whitelink

The whitelink you added doesn't seem to work yet. I tried to modify it as I don't think / need to be escaped but still no go. --NrDg 16:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I'm trying to get this fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra fixed it. --NrDg 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It should have worked with the last \b, but oh well. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a \ which made the regex parser think that it was ending earlier. --Kanonkas : Talk 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to log whitelist changes at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Log as well. --NrDg 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional, but it's useful for blacklisting/whitelisting requests. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added it to the log. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on user page

Thank you restoring my user page, undoing the vandalism. Much appreciated. Onkelschark (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steward elections

Thanks for your vote, for or against, and your constructive comments. Apteva (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

DYK is due for an update, and none of the regulars are around. Can you do it? I've got to run in ~15 minutes, but I'll help as much as I can until then. I can give instructions too. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try. I haven't done it before, so instructions would be helpful. --Kanonkas : Talk 23:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Upload the next pic from Commons to en and protect it. (Tag it with {{c-uploaded}}) 2) Copy hooks from queue 3 to T:DYK. That's the main part done. 3) Reset the time 4) Bump the count to 4. 5) Clear queue 3 to look like this. I'll do credits and archiving later when I get back. Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're a Commons admin too, you might just be able to protect the Commons side of the picture...not sure; you'd know better than me. Shubinator (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Looks like PeterSymonds got the time. I've got to dash - thanks for your help! Shubinator (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy to help. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, thanks for doing the credits and archiving too! (Same to PeterSymonds) Shubinator (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petersantos' latest incarnation

Hi Admin Kanonkas,

This is just to inform you that perma-blocked user Petersantos has risen from the dead as raw IP 222.152.164.160 and is presently engaged in his usual business over there at the Eli Soriano article.

Thank you,

Shannon Rose (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on the IP. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the activity of this one as well 121.54.68.114. I bet this is also him. Thank you. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darvit Chandhurai

Would you say this is obviously him back again? O Fenian (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his IP hopping, that seems for the best. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help on my user page :) I have replied to your note on my talk page. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

I suspect 86.25.180.185 is a sockpuppet of Darvit Chandhurai. From http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:O_Fenian#Thanks, it is very obvious that is 100% certain that it is a sockpuppet. Syjytg (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's a dynamic IP, so I'm leaving that one for now. --Kanonkas : Talk 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

90.196.91.202 has been vandalizing Template:2008–09 NBA Conference standings and Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching. Please block him. Syjytg (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Block evasion by Darvit Chandhurai. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. 90.197.194.188 When will this guy stop evading blocks and harm Wikipedia? Syjytg (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving that one for now. Very dynamic range, so it may affect someone else. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Tubman

Now that Harriet Tubman is no longer a TFA, can we reinstate its semi-protected status? It's a constant target of vandalism, since it's a popular research topic for children. Scartol • Tok 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of. Sorry for the late response, I forgot to reply back. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I think that User:69.119.10.73 should be banned from editing Wikipedia. He is vandalising pages, and has been blocked from editing already several times. What is the difference between block and ban anyway? Reply on my talk page. Thanks - --219.78.126.250 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you change the design on your talk page? Reply to me. Thanks - 219.78.126.250

Done. I've commented back to your user talk. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I copied the text you gave me regarding my question on how to change the design on the talk page. I'm sorry to say it didn't help. I think you made a mistake. Thanks --219.78.126.250 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need a header - {{User:Example/talk}} for example. I've also left you a new note. --Kanonkas : Talk 11:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Range block of 147.70.0.0/16

You know you blocked thousands of IP addresses from Miami-Dade College, where many college students mostly edit in good faith right, you could have easily blocked the single IP or so because every different computer has a different IP address, and there are many thousands. I also like editing annoymiously from that IP range, can you consider your unblock please. Thanks Secret ^account 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Secret. I understand this is a large range block. Unfortunately, the volume of vandalism from it made it necessary. The particular vandal at work here is not staying on a single IP. Perhaps they are simply using different computers around campus or in the computer labs/library, but there doesn't appear to be any other way to ensure they are blocked. However, because of the amount of traffic, I advised Kanonkas to keep the block relatively short to begin with (it's only 72 hours), and anonymous editors are able to register an account to edit. Dominic·t 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I could track down if the IP address is from any particular campus if further action is needed, the IP numbers are from the same range, but slightly different in each campus, and I know people who works in the computer system in Dade. Secret ^account 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the FlowMind link in the list of WorkFlow Engine ?

Hi,

We develop a WorkFlow engine, which is of a very high quality standard.

We are in the process of lauching a forum web site for users and students. We will also launch an open source version of FlowMind in 2009.

I added this solution to the List of workflow engines section in the WorkFlow Engines page.

Why should not I ?

There are other solutions listed and someone recently added Microsoft WorkFlow Foundation !

Please note that Wikipedia was sending referencing our forum to 200 people per week, and that those people have read most of our articles (which surely must be of interest, otherwise they would go away straight away).

And we are not making money from those references. Wikipedia is a way for us to reach Students, who might be interested in this subject.

When comes the commercial advertising, we will use GoogleAd.

Best regards,

Fred flemobile@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.255.150.229 (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please see our external links guideline - which will be pretty much explaining why it's not an appropriate link. If you have further concerns, I'll be happy to answer it. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shizhao (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc

Unprotecting this page during the school year isn't usually a good idea. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Durova. I assume you want a new protection? --Kanonkas : Talk 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ipod-nano-neiva

I'd bet that it's Headstrong Neiva, myself. Feel free to add it to my latest checkuser request for Brexx if you want, though.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi,concerning the arab article

Can you add the countries that i mentioned in the discussion second from the last to the "regions with significant populations"? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems like a user replied back to your request. See this diff on the article talk page. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i dont think you understood me, read my question again, i am asking because you semi-protected the arab article, and i cannot do it myself. In the "Regions with significant populations",there is the arab states, israel, USA, mexico only, but i want to add other countries with significant arab populations. This would add more information to the article. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that. That is why a user, PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) replied back to you at the article talk page. --Kanonkas : Talk 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hamiltons wrath

Would you object if I unblocked this user provided that: a. They stick to one account. b. They discuss all proposed changes regarding Quarternions on the talk page to get consensus before making said changes.

I'd have to check if they'd agree with this voluntary probation model, but I wanted to make sure you don't think sockpuppetry is unforgivable before I take action. -- Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say decline. I want to give them a second chance, but how they "replied" back - kind of gives me an impression to say no. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

X clamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The WPVG Newsletter (March 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sock?

This user seems to be sockpuppet of a Jacob Peters blocked by you here. Two his other socks were recently blocked: [2].Biophys (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with the sock puppeteer so I won't do any action. I hope you understand. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 09:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I only asked because the previous report was regarded as too obvious to require an intervention from Checkuser (the link above).Biophys (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Stewart

Re. Miley Stewart

Request removal of semi-prot.

I note that there is no recent history of vandalism, and that the previous alleged vandalism was by a single IP address User:90.208.181.228, which has since been blocked from editing.

Best, Chzz ► 09:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to leave the protection as it stands. You might want to check the history and the protection log. --Kanonkas : Talk 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad

I dropped a warning on User talk:Hairylegs before realizing you had deleted whatever; I'm trying out some new scripts, which are quick. From the history of Raissa Wlasek and the contribs of the others, I'd say they are all the same luser.; User:Santosmnr, and User:Waness00. G'day, Jack Merridew 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. Yes, I suspect both of them are socks. However, I feel it's best not to be too quick. We can always block them later. Thanks for the note! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch them; note I've seen this multiple account pattern from him many times. G'day, Jack Merridew 10:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (David)[reply]

Hamid vandal

A couple days ago you reverted an edit on Backslash's user page: [3]. I wanted to call attention to the fact that that person was not just a one-time vandal but has also vandalized other pages under other accounts with nearly the same exact content, such as this edit to Autism speaks and other edits by KingHamidTheGreat that are now deleted so I cant link to them directly. I have been around Wikipedia for a long time but am not really familiar with AIV enough to know if there is a place to go specifically to report suspected serial vandals, or check to see if other people have already spotted the pattern and have done so alrready. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help or if everything we can do so far has already been done. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring over Arab talk page

The revert warring over the talk page has been going on for weeks and I doubt it will stop. I don't see anything from that the IP that could be considered vandalism. I don't think 'ranting' should be excluded unless it has nothing to do with the article. As you can see there are plenty of rants on that talk page and they are not removed. As a compromise, I kept the IP's posts but archived the discussions since the page needs archiving anyways. Hope this compromise can be accepted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were more or less trolling. Thanks for the information, it's appreciated. --Kanonkas : Talk 18:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.189.124.90

You forgot to block that IP address, which appears to be a blatant sock puppet of Ozziepaws. -- IRP ☎ 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC), modified 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock from the main account should get their latest IP anyway - which is why I didn't block it directly. --Kanonkas : Talk 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives/archivelist needs to be deleted. -- IRP ☎ 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kanonkas : Talk 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redsred Question

Since this user has been creating socks to vandalize, would it be possible to blacklist that username like we do Grawp or HAGGER? It would settle some of the vandalism down....also, would an IP range block be necessary if blacklisting isn't doable? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 23:21

Yes, that's possible. We have Mediawiki:Titleblacklist for that (PS! Blacklisting the user names may have some collateral causes, which is why I'm not blacklisting)

A check user, will have to take a look on the socks. From there they will try to find out, if an IP range block can be done. --Kanonkas : Talk 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured blacklisting would be the last alternative....just thought I would throw it out there :) Let me know if you need someone to do the checkuser (if you are busy), I will be glad to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 23:32

DYK update needed

Could you do a DYK update from queue 3? I can do credits and archiving. Shubinator (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time for that now. Unfortunately, I am sorry! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 06:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks anyways. I like your sig

Shubinator (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Breakoutplatinum2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Breakoutplatinum2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks! That was... surprisingly quick =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Ping!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-19. howcheng {chat} 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfiecat

Do you think Alfiecat and User:92.25.227.63 are the same person? I noticed your block of Alfiecat and that I'd given him a warning several months a go similar to the one I gave the IP user yesterday. I sent Alfiecat an e-mail several months ago, as the user requested, but never received a reply. Nev1 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. As a matter of fact I got an e-mail from the user. The e-mail pretty much said it. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Cuthbert With St Matthias School

Hi - I'm after some advice on how to handle this situation. It seems the user is oblivious to their talk page, your comments on the AIV page suggested giving the user another chance - should I re-report them there if they do it again? I already requested page protection - it was suggested a block might be a better course of action. Thanks. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please report to AIV if a block is needed (disruptive edits/vandalism, etc). If it's not a clear-cut case, you might want to take it to administrators' noticeboard. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer article

This article is being evaluated, I read on the discussion page, by a board of administrators and I found your name amongst them. Can you, please, inform me about the status of the article? 1027E (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you thinking about an article assessment on the project's quality scale? --Kanonkas : Talk 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion request.

File:George M. Zinkhan.jpg can be deleted. It's a Fair use image no longer needed as there a properly licenced image on commons now. Thanks Calebrw (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my edit being (is) factual and neutral

I am usernoabuser and I created an update on the Kim Kardashian page. You responded with a message saying that my information was inaccurate and biased. I don't understand why you would say that when in fact I was only reporting what the truth. My information was in fact accurate and was not biased in any way. If you want to take anything off Kim Kardashian's page why don't you start with the biased allegations about her "so called sex scandal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernoabuser (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit looking at the edit now I'm a bit confused, as to why I removed it. Feel free to re-add it on the talk page. I think I had my reasons, but I can't remember it. Sorry for the inconvenience this my have caused you. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haskins vs. James Haskins

Hi there. I am hoping you can help with a dispute which has cropped up on the Jim Haskins article. I noticed about a month back that the article was conflating the deceased African-American children's book author James Haskins with the still living radio presenter Jim Haskins. (James Haskins is often credited as Jim Haskins in his books.) I went ahead and split up the articles more properly, which left the Jim Haskins entry quite... pithy.

A user named User:Peter Napkin Dance Party put back some incredibly non-notable info on the site (stuff about Haskins' ethnic background, the fact that he is nearsighted [!], and some decontextualized and unenlightening "quotes"). You can check the article history if you're interested in seeing them. In fact, the way the Jim Haskins article currently stands, as an obscure radio host who had recently lost his job, I put up a notability tag; in my mind, it would be more correct to have both "Jim Haskins" and "James Haskins" refer to the same person, e.g. the deceased author.

User:Peter Napkin Dance Party, however, refuses to accept that James and Jim Haskins are two different people! In essence, he insists that the author faked his death and moved to Ohio to become a radio host. O-kay... I've tried to be civil about all this — you can read our exchanges on the Jim Haskins talk page, but at this point I think we need somebody to step in. Would you be willing to be that person? Much appreciated. -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take an evaluation when I have some spare time left. Is that fine? --Kanonkas : Talk 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try WP:MEDCAB, and see how that works out. I'm sorry, but I don't have enough time to deal with the dispute. I hope you understand. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the suggestion -- stoshmaster (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Does this mean I have to return the Barnstar? ;) Cheers,

Interesting vandal, though. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave edit summaries when doing cleanups like this - when I spotted the removed barnstar here I assumed you were the vandal, till I came to this page to give a warning about removing other editors' comments from talk pages, and found this thread! So I've wasted time reverting, and re-reverting, your removal. PamD (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used rollback. Rollback gives you an automatic summary when used, which is why I couldn't leave a more descriptive edit summary. Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused you, and others. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the below useful for similar cleanup jobs in future. –xeno ^talk 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js'); // allows tweaking of rollback edit summary

I guess I'm a subscriber of Mr.Z-man's scripts, so I knew about that script. However, I wasn't sure if that script could be used with User:John254/mass rollback.js;, but I've just tested it. It seems like both the scripts can be used together. Thanks for info. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

Why did you remove it from my talk page? What's your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the above thread. That was a vandal using a sock puppet to spam barnstars, in a disruptive way. --Kanonkas : Talk 12:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaaah! Boo hoo. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Saints Row 2 battle.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Saints Row 2 battle.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on putting Mr. Potato's head back on

He's prepared a fairly promising response to a {{2nd chance}} offer, please see User talk:Mrpotatohead 2#Unblock requests and comment. –xeno ^talk 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should see this before evaluating (the ones with sockpuppetry/vandalism is Mrpotatohead 2's socks). This user has created multiple socks for a period, now abusing open proxies to create more socks. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did these pop up in a CU or something? They appear to be from late last month. As you may know, I'm always one for giving people a second chance should they give an indication they wish to make an about-face and contribute to the encyclopedia. The user described at User:Xeno/RFAQ, for example, turned around and made many positive contributions. –xeno ^talk 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those accounts came from a CU result. I have seen that page of yours before ;) No, the blocks were given as early as yesterday. It's the May 5 blocks, with the above block summary I stated. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the blocks are from yesterday, but they were mostly created and used at the tail end of April. Here's a vandalism revert made by one of the accounts that was blocked. So, while I agree there was disruption in the past (even as recently as May 4th on Jungle), perhaps we have turned the corner with this one. I did seek comment from Dominic as well. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. –xeno ^talk 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dominic's comments, Mr. P is unrelated to some of those other socks, so just to confirm; do you have a problem if I unblock the user with the understanding I'll mentor them? –xeno ^talk 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility this user has been using meat puppets, after having a chat with a CU. Speaking as someone with experience with socking, there is a clear case of sock puppetry here, just so you know that. However, if you want to give the user a second chance, I have no opposition against it. Thanks for asking. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll make the leap. Heck, the California Golden Seals article needs the love =) cheers, –xeno ^talk 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter

Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.

—VG Newsletter Contributors

Notice delivery by –xeno ^talk 15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombianorgulloso

Another sock puppet: Claumy (talk · contribs). Regards.--91.172.128.205 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not experienced with Colombianorgulloso's socking. Some evidence would be nice. Thank you and best regards. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not speak English. The user has already been identified in commons [4]. Thanks.--83.154.1.172 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. Thank you for the information. Claumy (talk · contribs) is now blocked. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 09:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock puppet: Latino06 (talk · contribs). Regards.--91.168.35.41 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, I see you're an admin here as well. Would you be ok to give me the rollback user right on en.WP? Or do you prefer that I file a formal request? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eusebius. Don't worry about the whole "formal" way. I've handled your request, and granted you rollback. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 17:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham New Street station name

Hey, could you please move Birmingham New Street station to Birmingham New Street railway station, in line with every other single-transport station in Britain? I'd do it myself, but I'm not an admin so can't move over redirects. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mattbuck. It's now

Done. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkip template

Hi Kanonkas, I changed this template over to use dnsstuff instead of samspade and only then noticed your change from two days ago. I changed it because samspade doesn't seem to have up-to-date allocation maps: check this. 173/8 was allocated in February 2008 [5] and 173.96/11 is owned by Sprint[6], so I'm not sure we should be using samspade. What do you think? Franamax (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the dnsstuff tool to be a bit trickier at times. There was also some commercials, IIRC. However, I'm fine with dnsstuf. Thank you for informing me. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on the issue of advertising, and I saw something there about "limited number of daily trials". I personally use ZoneEdit's service, it's nice and clean and has good options. Of course they might change if all of en:wiki's traffic starts coming their way. :) Franamax (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for the late replies here. As you may know, it's our constitution day today! However, I haven't tested zoneedit's lookup tool. Can it do a normal WHOIS check? --Kanonkas : Talk 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a holiday weekend here too (a long-dead Queen) so we're even. Yes they have a whois service too [7] which works well for ARIN [8]. Not sure how complete the info coming back from RIPE and APNIC would be though. Franamax (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to you. Either way is fine. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Killing Your Number (Prison Break)

I'm not too familiar with the show - perhaps you could model it from plot summary examples of quality-rated articles related to the show, and also secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I only just noticed you did this edit. The IP posted again, claiming your undo was vandalism! I didn't notice though and so I've replied to him. As another admin, I don't know if you want to make a comment either way. I have a day to revert myself, apparently, or else! Matthewedwards : Chat 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The IP is the banned user himself, so it's a ban evasion. I suggest just reverting them, block if needed. No need to reply back to them, after all. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q ^{T C} 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amrambulance.jpg

I'm not sure how to handle this:

first version was uploaded by User:Coolcaesar ({{GFDL-self}})
3 years later User:LMTabone replaced it with another image without any source or license. He blanked the page and then reverted his own edit.

I'd like to move the first version as of 07:19, 18 September 2005 to Commons.

I might revert it to the first version and move it to Commons
and then ...
- (a) simply tag the file (still first version) with {{NowCommons}}?
- (b) revert again to the second version and tag with {{nsd}}/{{nld}}?
- (c) ... better idea?

-- Common Good (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would go with plan (a). Also possibly deleting the newer one, as it had some dubious copyright status. What do you think? --Kanonkas : Talk 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you delete the second version. But that's you decision. You are the admin. :-) -- Common Good (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons. Thank you. -- Common Good (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

Hi Kanonkas-I'm in the process of writing a bot that will be running on a Dreamhost web server using this IP-69.163.128.253 Currently I think it might not be logging in & so is being blocked. Do you think, as the admin who blocked it here you could unblock it for a day or so, so I can test it etc.? dottydotdot (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please reply back when you're done. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! dottydotdot (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done now-I have requested a block exemption on my talk page-hopefully done right?!:,) I don't know whether you can do that for me as well or not? Cheers! dottydotdot (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Afghana

It looks like you blocked Afghana based on the report at AN/I related to the joker type emails. It looks like there may have been a mix up due to a rename request that was processed the next day. Please see User talk:Afghana. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got a private message from a user. The user told me about Afghana's e-mail, and later mailed me it. I think we should get a clarification from a CU, but the blocked user is likely not the sock puppet. I too think there is some rename mixup here. Thank you for notifying me. --Kanonkas : Talk 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently misinformed about the whole situation. The user is now unblocked, and thank you for informing me once again. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of user:Gerald Gonzalez - possible massive copyvio uploads on commons

I just blocked Multipliers (talk · contribs) as a sock of banned Gerald Gonzalez (talk · contribs). While undoing all his edits I noticed that he is continuing his pattern of uploading to commons obvious copyright violating images and claiming ownership so the he could add the images to en wiki articles. I recognize some of the images as having been uploaded and deleted as copyvios before but I can't see the old info. He is using the same name on Commons, see commons:Special:Contributions/Multipliers. I figured it might be quicker to just tell you about this than tag each image on commons. Thanks. --NrDg 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Deleted the uploads and blocked the acccount on Commons. Thank you for telling me. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is Alexander Rybak ortodox or katolic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.96.154 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You can do a bit searching, but I haven't found anything of interest. Sorry. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 11:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]