User talk:Nishkid64: Difference between revisions

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #124

Archives

July 1, 2006 - August 20, 2006 August 21, 2006 - August 30, 2006 August 31, 2006 - September 29, 2006 September 30, 2006 - October 6, 2006 October 7, 2006 - October 12, 2006 October 13, 2006 - October 19, 2006 October 19, 2006 - October 27, 2006 October 27, 2006 - November 6, 2006 November 7, 2006 - November 14, 2006 November 14, 2006 - November 23, 2006 November 23, 2006 - December 3, 2006 December 3, 2006 - December 9, 2006 December 10, 2006 - December 16, 2006 December 17, 2006 - December 26, 2006 December 26, 2006 - December 31, 2006 December 31, 2006 - January 5, 2007 January 6, 2007 - January 16, 2007 January 16, 2007 - January, 22, 2007 January 23, 2007 - January 29, 2007 January 29, 2007 - February 7, 2007 February 7, 2007 - February 16, 2007 February 16, 2007 - February 22, 2007 February 22, 2007 - March 2, 2007 March 2, 2007 - March 10, 2007 March 10, 2007 - March 23, 2007 March 25, 2007 - April 19, 2007 April 20, 2007 - April 30, 2007 April 30, 2007 - May 14, 2007 May 14, 2007 - June 3, 2007 June 3, 2007 - June 19, 2007 June 19, 2007 - July 10, 2007 July 11, 2007 - September 15, 2007 September 17, 2007 - October 3, 2007 October 4, 2007 - October 15, 2007 October 15, 2007 - November 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 - November 19, 2007 November 20, 2007 - December 14, 2007 December 14, 2007 - January 3, 2008 January 3, 2008 - January 17, 2008 January 18, 2008 - February 6, 2008 February 7, 2008 - March 3, 2008 March 3, 2008 - March 24, 2008 March 24, 2008 - April 23, 2008 April 23, 2008 - May 15, 2008 May 15, 2008 - June 11, 2008 June 11, 2008 - July 9, 2008 July 9, 2008 - July 29, 2008 July 29, 2008 - August 20, 2008 August 20, 2008 - September 12, 2008 September 12, 2008 - October 21, 2008 October 21, 2008 - December 1, 2008 December 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008 January 1, 2009 - January 24, 2009 January 25, 2009 - February 17, 2009 February 17, 2009 - March 20, 2009 March 20, 2009 - April 9, 2009 April 9, 2009 - May 5, 2009 May 7, 2009 - June 8, 2009 June 8, 2009 - June 23, 2009 June 24, 2009 - Present

Good morning, I would know something more about the block of user Ragusino. I have followed some articles on en.Wikipedia because we have had different vandalism in it.wikipedia (I am sysop of it.wikipedia). Ragusino seemed to have a different vision to that of Direktor but not so bad considering some concerns.

The position of Ragusino seemed to be correct and I have asked some justifications in the talk page of Talk:House_of_Kabužić/Caboga because the concerns of Ragusino are also my concerns considering that in the header of page we can read the coat of army of the house (taken from a croation book) and the name is Caboga and any historical book reports the name of Caboga (which is not the italian name but the dalmatian name and dalmatian was the official language of Republic of Ragusa).

Reading at the block of Ragusino I don't understand the justification for his block because the check user has not displayed any "clear" proof for his sockpuppeteer. It seemed to me that a war edit has been in favor of one part instead of investigate in detail the problem.

In my opinion the difference of vision should be solved in another way considering that the other part is strongly oriented in a vision not shared by a big part of the historical literature.

What I understand is that Ragusino=Cristian.Bilicic but it's only a suspect.

I would suggest a more detailed investigation not only by check user side but also a more "neutral" resolution of conflict.

Thank you

--Ilario (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusino (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino/Archive

Hello Ilario. Excuse my interjection, but I'm familiar with the Ragusino case. Your suspicion that Ragusino and Cristian.Bilicic are the same was confirmed by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragusino/Archive. For a number of his sockpuppets see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ragusino. Ragusino was an extremely energetic puppeteer and continued his war for a long time. He was not good at discussing anything on Talk. It is too bad, because it would be helpful to have people with knowledge of the Italian side on some of the Dalmatian issues who are willing to behave diplomatically. I recall that Ragusino continued his war using numerous IPs. Seven pages had to be semiprotected when he kept editing in spite of his block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching out for editing problems at the family of articles related to Khalidi, Moshe Ya'alon, etc. Please do be careful. I think you're at 3RR as a technical matter on Khalidi, and you should double check to make sure you're not past 3RR there or anywhere else. There's no hurry, but at some point we ought to remove the POV tags and restore anything in the articles that got munged up recently. Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count only two reverts at Khalidi, but concern duly noted. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When pages are locked often admins roll back to the next to the second last version. I also wonder why admins don't consider WP:BURDEN when doing so and more specifically the fact that the burden of proof is on the editor who adds or restores material. I believe locking a page for a fortnight is excessive, the medicine is worse than the affliction. It would be more useful for you to give your opinion in talk about whether this edit meets verifiability criteria.Goramon (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming in and pointing that out about the sources. I had read a book with the same title as the Chapter "Cyborgs in Cyberspace" from "Reality Squared", and unsurprisingly not found Stormfront. Still, I just want to make sure the source directly supports the text included in the article, and since "others" is a mass attribution, I want to know if the text describes the opinion of a group of people and how large that group is, of if the text is simply one person's opinion. I actually have no objection to the quote if it's supported and attributed in the text (as opposed from simply referenced) correctly.Goramon (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pedir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Koov

Hello Nishkid64. Turkish Flame has posted on my talk page proposing that Pedir is a sock of Koov. I would be tempted to issue an indef block based on the stilted language used in the edit summaries, and the interest in diplomatic templates, unless you think otherwise. Pedir has edited Foreign relations of Romania, an article previously edited by:

• Rolsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Rohlg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

two accounts that are already blocked as Koov socks. I have not run across any new socks of Koov since Rohlim in February, but Pedir could easily be him. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. He's been quite active since my last Koov sweep in early July. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I plan on running for admin. some time in the near future, I began editing here on September 2007. Do you think I have a good chance of getting approved, I have a very troubled past, What do I need to work on?. Thank-you and please reply, House1090 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the information! House1090 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As someone who has been involved in editing the Jammu and Kashmir article I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on the talk section about what to include in the lead. Pahari Sahib 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1], I feel I should complain to the "Islamic Radical and perhaps terrorist" who are supposed to be funding me - I haven't seen a penny yet! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishkid, I haven't seen you involved with this article or the related Darko Trifunovic article, so asking you to consider semi-protection of both the article and talk pages. It's fairly evident that the disruption to both pages comes from a person mentioned in the article and/or affiliated parties, and I'm not aware of any constructive edits from anonymous editors. Admittedly the article is closely watched and the disruption is not intense in frequency. But it seems to be coming from a single source, which source is likely a banned editor, so it might be worth sending a message. The aggrieved person is well aware of how to use wikimail to enunciate concerns. Just a thought on a possible solution to this periodic and predictable disruption... Franamax (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. I'm not sure who the 94.67 IPs are, but the 94.189 IPs are clearly Darko Trifunovic. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop removing sprotection from Urartu? This is beginning to take on proportions of a wheel-war. We have lots of truly long-term trolls who are just waiting for semiprotection to be lifted. All anonymous "contributions" we get after you unprotect this again just need to be reverted and simply clutter the edit history. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected the page four months ago after it had been protected for nearly a year. Before that, I had protected the page three times (to prevent Araret arev from editing) and unprotected it once. Boy, you're right. This is a clear case of wheel warring. Dabbie, dabbie, dabbie. You must learn that if you want people to listen, you shouldn't be so abrasive, condescending, or accusatory. I hope you sincerely take my advice to heart to prevent such unpleasant interactions from occurring in the future. Here's an example of the type of message people would be more receptive to: Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, I have again semi-protected Urartu to prevent some truly long-term trolls from editing the article. I noticed that you had unprotected the article before, and I just wanted to recommend that you leave semi-protection in place indefinitely, as these individuals keep returning to the article every time page protection is lifted. Thanks."

In which my reply would be: "Okay, thanks for the note. I'll definitely keep that in mind." See how much better that went? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you compare to the list that was cleared in yesterday's report to see if one of those SPAs is socking? I'm just having a hard time believing this wave of completely unrelated accounts that are created specifically to make the same comment on the same page. I've looked, and I can't find a fansite that's organizing a meatpuppeting session, either.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through them yesterday per J.delanoy's request. The two new accounts are not related to ones cleared yesterday. I am a bit surprised by the geographic spread of the accounts I've cleared so far. I don't think it's open proxy abuse, but perhaps some sort of off-wiki recruitment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thread is deleted now (apparently due to the Nazi references), but here we go:http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:KQ7FclNdhEsJ:www.mjfanclub.net/mjforum373/showthread.php%3Fp%3D200669+%2Bwikipedia+%2B%22michael+jackson%22+unfair+350&cd=8&hl=ja&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

—Kww(talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking yet another MascotGuy IP. I know it's getting tedious. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user Athenean keeps removing perfectly fine material on baseless grounds of "aesthetic qualities" of the picture. This is, I believe, nothing as but an excuse for his POV pushing being displayed here by removing a picture that demonstrates the fustanella but is Albanian. I only reverted his vandalism once, and I writing to you in order to not get into a edit war with him. Here is the link to above mentioned article and changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fustanella&action=history--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also while you're at it, please at the message Athenan has left me. Notice the threatning words such as "Do you really think this is a good idea?" and "This is your final warning".

I see you're back, and have resumed your bad old edit-warring habits. In this instance, I noticed you reverted me instantly. Do you really think that is a good idea? We had total peace and quiet for the month that you were blocked, which ended the second your block expired. Tenet has ancestry from Himara, Albania does NOT have MEPs, (and isn't going to for the foreseeable future), and no one's ever heard of this Anagnosti fellow outside Albania. The fact that there is a page in the Albanian wikipedia means nothing, only English language sources will do. Consider this your final warning. --Athenean (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask that you intervene in this edit war that Athenean has started in the article of Himara. He has now tag teamed with Alexikoua once again to make multiple reverts wihout any consent while I have opened a dialog in the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Himar%C3%AB --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert Athenean's edit on the fustanella article relating to the photo, since his excuse is not valid, and I want to refrain from any actions that would be considered edit warring?--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing a bunch of edits adding unconfirmed names (or adding colors to names where they were not before) from IPs, but the range looks too large to block, yet it belongs to Cingular mobile. Here are the last four IPs used (the first is currently in use):

• 166.217.82.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.153.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.173.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.217.200.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Is there going to be an easy way to prevent this individual's edits?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection could be an option, but the editing appears to be so sporadic that it might do more harm than good. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you blocked a couple of accounts as sockpuppets of this account recently. They returned as EffGeeBee (talk · contribs) so I have blocked that account indefinitely. I also blocked their IP address 124.170.71.207 (talk · contribs) for a week. I suspect that ANZCER (talk · contribs) is probably the same person but I have not blocked them. You are welcome to alter any of these blocks, at your discretion.-gadfium 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I picked up another account and open proxy IP with Checkuser. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.234.4 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)Wikireader41 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can also semi-protect Mughal Empire the article itself? Nangparbat is causing disruption there too. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his edits to your talk page as banned users aren't allowed to edit. I hope you didn't mind the reversions. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nishkid64, could you please take action on the Pashtun diaspora article? An anonymous IP Address is constantly removing entire sections of the article, despite the fact that multiple references are present. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is probably another sockpuppet of indef-blocked Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive.

Blocked sock 70.90.59.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), whose comments in the investigation are pretty identical to the comments of Romandrumanagh and 209.215.162.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), first inserted the material that the Romandrumanagh account, newly-created with red-flag username, showed up to edit-war over (see history of Drumanagh article).

Looks to me like Romandrumanagh is 70.90.59.74, and 209.215.162.17 is most likely the same user. Romandrumanagh suddenly decided to "retire in protest" shortly before the indef-block came down on the other accounts. Has not edited recently, but I think that, if others concur it's the same user, the account should also be blocked and flagged as part of the sockdrawer. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out Paul0559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who started the Drumanagh article, and also lobbied for the same content the socks edit-warred over. Per this sock investigation it looks like we have two drawers, and high probability of same puppetmaster. Yow. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article where the edit-warring happened, Drumanagh was started by blocked sock Paul0559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), part of the Rex Dominator sock drawer. As some of those also used IP 70.90.59.74, it looks like both sock drawers have a high probability of same puppetmaster. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs), Easy4all (talk · contribs), Perseverator8 (talk · contribs), Paul0559 (talk · contribs), Albich (talk · contribs), StrVarus (talk · contribs), A(u)R(elianus duca)THUR (talk · contribs), 77ron (talk · contribs), Maltesemizzi (talk · contribs) as Brunodam socks. RexDominator is unrelated; as I stated at the SPI, he's a sock of Mike Babic. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]