User talk:Spitfire

This user may have left Wikipedia. Spitfire has not edited Wikipedia since February 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

March 2008 — May 2009 June 2009 — January 2010 February 2010 — June 2010

Spitfire (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

In regard to you reply,can you do it as i'm a bit stuck on how to do it.?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the IP in this case? I didn't see that it was addressed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Storm Rider. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll have been autoblocked. The checkuser reviewing the case apparently didn't feel that anything more sufficient was needed (bear in mind that it dances around the checkuser policy to explicitly block IPs as belonging to a sockpuppeteer/user (although blocking a range is more acceptable (and it doesn't strictly speaking explicitly violate the policy, either))). If you have concerns, it may be best to take them up with the checkuser who reviewed the case, although personally I'd say the autoblock will probably be sufficient; if they continue afterwards then something more restrictive may be considered. Let me know if there are further problems. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't end up at SPI very often so I just wasn't sure what the routine was. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am more bothered by the process. Having a notice placed on my page that I am suspected of abusing one or more accounts was offensive. Then the I felt the case was so very flimsy. Instead of issuing notices and listing the suspicions of an editor, would it not be better to just facilitate the process? If there is a concern, just use Check User and then editors know if there is a problem or not. In my case, it would have been immediately clear there was no relationship. The editor with the suspicion would have been mollified and the accused would have never know about it. If evidence can be so flimsy, then omit the case building because it is obvious the bar is so low to qualify for a search, it is meaningless. Does this make sense?

In society the mere mention of a suspicion can affect one's reputation. To have any suspicion of my actions is a stain I would prefer limit as much as possible. --^StormRider 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Storm Rider, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not listed the IPs at the top he is also editing from all the IPs in this history, which led to my comments here. I fear blocking one range will only be ineffective. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Hum. Heh. Cheers, I'll amend my comment Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame to see you leave but i hope you enjoyed contributing to it. Simply south (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did. I expect I'll still pop by occasionally, and I might even return fully at some point. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for a clerk that would be willing to act as my trainer. Would you be available to do so? Yworo (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat discussed this with Yworo on IRC. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOTD is currently discussing possible changes to how the project is done. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Please see Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes. Thank you for your time. Simply south (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless

		The MOTD Barnstar
		This award is given to you for helping out Motto of the day. Thanks to your effort, MOTD has brilliantly and successfully passed the most difficult period of the year. In fact, there are mottoes scheduled until the end of the summer. For this reason MOTD would like to express heartfelt thanks to you for your support. We appreciate your efforts in further helping the project! – delivered by Simply south on behalf of Wikipedia:Motto of the day 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks a lot, Simply south. Always quite fancied myself one of these! Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TableXL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spitfire. It looks to me that admins have done everything they are going to do on this case. (I blocked one IP and PeterSymonds did others). As an admin, am I allowed to change the status template to {{SPI case status|close}}? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. Thanks a lot for your work on this case. I agree that it looks like it's tidied up now. You're more than welcome to request that SPI cases be archived by adding the |close parameter, however, since you've noted here that it's been dealt with, I've now archived the Ahmed shahi case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NisarKand/Archive, so nothing more to do there for now. Thanks again. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise to see another sock [1]. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Looks like you've dealt with that one now; shame we can't get a range block in place against that guy. Thanks for blocking the IP, in any case. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just blocked a 2nd IP, so I've semi'd the two pages they are targeting. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks again for your work on this case. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting the vandal on my talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? I don't seem to recall commenting there, although I did archive a case from there once. Thanks anyway, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Thanks for taking me on. It'll be a few days before I get on IRC ('til the cloak goes through, anyway), but I just modified my account to allow emails, so feel free to send over whatever. I've read over a bunch of those policies, but I'll give them another look in the next dew days. Anyway, I'll shoot you a message when the cloak takes effect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, mind sending me a similar email? I never got the super secret SPI clerk handbook. (If you think it would be useful) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I responded to NativeForeigner on IRC. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

Greetings. I have noticed that several editors having been having an ongoing problem with a user called "garnetandblack" who has been using multiple ips to harrass other editors. I tried helping by filing a complaint, and see that he has had multiple complaints filed concerning the same ip accounts. No usercheck was re-requested. If usercheck was denied, don't see why removing his user id in the complaint is necessary since the rest of the complaint concerns the same user, "garnetandblack." Thanks for your time (& "talley-ho") AWhiteHat (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWhiteHat has been confirmed by CheckUser to be a sockpuppet of Apollo1975[2], and sockpuppet and edit warring reports are currently pending against this editor. Feel free to ignore any further disruptive edits by this user. Thanks! GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, GarnetAndBlack. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions. Simply south (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a last call. Any opinions should be suggested by and including November 5th. See Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes Simply south (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously commented at a sock investigation on this user, now there is another one, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLubber. Perhaps you may have some prior knowledge, experience and expertise to impart, with this particular case. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I see that you delisted my requested for a quck check at SPI, because it would involve connecting an IP with a named account, but I'm a bit confused, then, about what one is supposed to do about a named user who is deliberately editing as an IP to avoid identification, when one knows the IP (or one of them) and not the account. Surely, this behavior is against policy -- I've seen editors blocked or otherwise sanction for it, and even taken to task for occasional slip ups when not logging in -- so how is one to report it? I didn't file a full SPI, because it would mean naming a master account, and the whole point is that I don't know what it is, but you delisted the quick check. Is there no procedure to cover this situation? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP comments that most their edits recently have been done mainly from their IP, rather than their registered account. They say they have been doing this because they were feeling that they were being put under particular pressure from another user while editing from their old account, and they decided that they wanted to get away from that, but continue to edit wikipedia. There's absolutely nothing there to suggest that they are abusively using their IP and account in conjunction. Of course, there's nothing to suggest that they're not doing that either, however, the IP user has been good enough to disclose information regarding their position. A simple hunch that they might be acting abusively is not sufficient evidence to justify a check.

Privacy is highly important on all wikimedia projects, particularly in this case, where the editor in question feels that they have been targeted by another user. CheckUser_policy#Information_release is the relevant policy section. This is a wikimedia policy regarding the user of the check user tool, which is tied closely to the requirements of the privacy policy. There are also en.wp policies that back up the same point, Wikipedia:CHECK#Guidance_given_to_CheckUsers.

However, the main reason the case was removed is because it was misfiled, the quick checkuser cases header clearly states:

Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned.

If you still wish to file a full SPI case, then feel free, but please bear in mind what I've said above, and remain aware that the case is unlikely to be approved for checkuser.

Best wishes,

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complainant made two non-constructive reverts (Steve Collins - little-known brother mentioned in the lede, The Beach - reinstatement of comment from non-RS (imdb.com) (and was called on the latter by another editor)) to edits made by the IP (me) in question in the wake of this morning's discussion. A clearer case of wikistalking petulance you will never see. DO review the edits if you can be bothered, I cannot realistically be expected to AGF on BMK's part in this instance. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take your concerns up at AN/I (I see you've already tried discussing it with Ken); there's not really anything I can do to deal with the accusations you're making. They also don't have a direct effect on any decisions made w/r/t SPI cases, since they are dealt with based on the merits and facts of the case, not the attitudes of the users involved (unless that relates in some way to the evidence of the case). You'd probably be best of assuming good faith, since I'm sure Ken has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would AN/I if I knew how. It's not that important (to me), I just think it's a bit odd that he's gone off on one with my edits because daedalus (sp?) contradicted him. BMK is indicative of the worst self-indulgent excesses of the 'me, me, me' editors that proliferate this place. The phrase 'get a life' could scarcely be more appropriate and I don't see how I can assume GF when BMK is making what are clearly bad faith edits with stalkery. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Spitfire: Thanks for your explanation. I suggest that, like the conflict between WP:COI and WP:OUTING, there's a tension here between separate Wikipedia policies, in this case the desire to maintain editor privacy and the sockpuppetry rules which mandate that an editor with an account should not edit as an IP to escape scrutiny. I think that the answer is for CUs (or, rather, the Foundation rules which guide them) to not be quite so squeamish about applying a checkuser screening -- but that's another discussion for another day. Thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, it's something of a quandary. In any case thank you very much for your understanding. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spitfire, a few months ago I was interested to see that you had moved an SPI case which had been filed backward (so it looked like the puppetmaster was being identified as the puppet of one of his newest socks). You had moved the SPI case to become a subsection of the lengthy casepage on the puppetmaster.
Now I am in a situation where I have identified two previously unassociated puppetmasters as sockpuppets of a much older puppetmaster and I would like to get these cases moved/merged into the original puppetmaster's file. I filed a new SPI on the matter and the SPI investigator found that they were in fact all the same person, but then the closing admin did not merge the cases. I asked the closing admin if he would mind if I performed the merge myself and he gave me his blessing.
I now have two questions:

• 1) I am not an administrator. Am I allowed to perform a merge like this?
• 2) How does one perform a merge like this? Is there a simple way or is it a brute force copy and paste job?

Thank you very much for any light you can shed on this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thibbs. Thanks for bringing this to attention.

The SPI case which I moved/merged only had one edit, which was relatively insignificant. This meant a simple cut and paste job handled the merge fine, without bringing up any copyright problems.

From what you've said above, it would seem that the cases which you are referring to might need something slightly more substantial. Personally I'd say it sounds as though a history merge will be needed (delete the page you want to merge to, move the page you're merging to that location, and then restore the original page). This needs to be handled by an admin; preferably one who is familiar with SPI (as a general rule of the thumb case merges should be handled by clerks).

If you pass on the details of the cases to me I'll be happy to see about finding an admin SPI clerk on IRC to deal with the history merging. Alternatively you could ask on the SPI clerk's noticeboard. Obviously if you think the case that you want to merge would be fine as a cut and paste job (e.g. it has only been edited by one user, and is not yet archived), then let me know and we can see about doing it that way.

Kindest regards,

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. The details are as follows:

• Original puppet master's casepage (Dr90s)
• Casepage of 1st sock (Majorphase) misidentified as a unique puppet master
• Casepage of 2nd sock (Wikipedian05) misidentified as a unique puppet master
• SPI case I filed requesting the merge of all socks (Majorphase, Wikipedian05, all of Majorphase's socks, and all of Wikipedian05's socks) under the 1 Original puppet master (Dr90s)
• Finding by SPI Investigator that all are the same person and can be merged
• Agreement to allow merging by the Closing Administrator

In the SPI case that I filed the Investigator noted that all of the sockfarms I had identified belonged to the same original puppet master. This is an important distinction to make since I had also brought charges against one individual (Wikipedian06) previously banned for only vandalism. If I am reading the Investigator's finding correctly, I don't think he has agreed with my sockpuppetry charge against the vandal. By specifying that the sockfarms are the same, I think he meant to allow the merging of only Majorphase (and his socks) and Wikipedian05 (and his socks) into the casepage for Dr90s. In retrospect this makes good sense to me as there are a few strong differences between Wikipedian06 and Dr90s. Thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much. The history merges and related tidying up have now been kindly dealt with by PeterSymonds. Let me know if there's any lingering problems. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything worked perfectly. Thanks so much. -Thibbs (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Per this post. Any suggestions on who I might approach to become a trainee clerk? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Nick. Thank you for your interest in SPI. The normal place to request to be taken on as a trainee clerk would be on the SPI clerk's notice board. However, we've recently been turning away most non-admin applicants as the main backlog at the moment is with the admin cases. Under 4000 edits is also a little less than what we might normally look for. Nonetheless you're very welcome to post a section on the notice board, if you still want to try and apply anyway (although I'd advise waiting). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then wait I will. Thanks for the advice. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me on IRC, and for telling me not to give you one...:P Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.

If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010

The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined badly on which version should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. The deadline is Friday at 9pm UTC. Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! How did you notice 1) this, and 2) this? Thanks in advance! HeyMid (contribs) 13:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By looking. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reopen that case please? . I was about to post something when you archived it. Do I need to start a new page to accuse him of being that banned editor? A year after being blocked, this other editor just happens to make a sock going after someone who hasn't been around for quite some time? Special:Contributions/Editor XXV I think its one of Jack's old accounts perhaps. He had this other account on his watchlist, and seems to be doing his usual taunting methods. Please see User talk:A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea Dream Focus 09:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Jack. A CheckUser has confirmed it was Editor XXV. I, myself, have dealt with Editor XXV, and its MO isn't Jack's. Please stop falsely accusing. :| --Bsadowski1 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As myself and Bsadowski1 have told you, A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk · contribs) is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of the sockpuppteer Editor XXV (talk · contribs). Before this incident, Editor XXV's last confirmed instance of sockpuppetry was on the 25th of December 2010 (link), so no, I don't think it's strange that he's still around now. Also, Jack has clearly stated that he did not have the page on his watchlist, but followed an ANI thread. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, sorry about that...I hadn't paid attention to the casepage until I filed my report today, and having not read the previous cases I didn't see the part where they're not going to check them. Point taken, though, and I'll remember that in the future. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spitfire. Just thought I should let you know that there currently is a discussion in progress at WP:RFD that may interest you, as it concerns redirects from your former userspace to your current userspace. You can find the discussion thread at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#User:Theterribletwins1111. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We could do with your assistance for suggestions of mottos and any decisions on current ones. Please see Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations. In case this situation occurs again, we would like a discussion on emergency mottos. Please see WT:MOTD/N#Emergency mottos. Simply south...... 14:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the recent history on this wiki page, and my IP wasn't the one list who made the most change. It would be nice if you could keep from sending messages to this IP address in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.69.31 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the IP's talk page. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		Every Sockpuppet investigation I've seen (including my own back when I was a bad user) you have been involved in. Thank you for your contributions. Oddbodz (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spitfire,

I'm contacting you because you were kind enough to help me in making an entry about the official town song of Hull, which I composed, for the Wiki page on Hull.

I wrote a full-length original musical about famed lifesaver Joshua James that was presented by the Hull Performing arts last year. (I can supply abundant citations from independent news sources to prove this.) The show also featured the character John Boyle O'Reilly, Irish patriot and poet. I tried listing my musical on both their pages under "legacy," but it was removed.

I wrote a full-length original musical about a defunct Hull amusemet part called Paragon Park which is currently in production (again, I can supply credible citations for proof). My entry on the Paragon Park page to that effect was removed. However, another entry about an as yet unfinished Paragon Park musical--without citations supplied--has been active on the page for some time and has not been removed. I fail to understand the logic behind what stays and what is removed.

Finally, I recently released a CD of music by American composer Stephen Foster. My entry to that effect was removed, but CDs by other musicians of Foster's music are still up. Last week, a fan told me she tried inserting an entry and it was quickly removed.

I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can offer as it seems there is an ambiguous set of rules for what is allowed to be posted and what is not.

Many thanks,

Cinzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.62.102 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Cinzi. Long time no speak, how you doing? :)

When you're making changes to articles (particularly changes where a conflict of interest is present) it's highly important that you reference your sources. Reliable independent news sources (as you mention above) are ideal. You can reference these by appending <ref>put a link-to/description-of the source here (ideally a link)</ref> to your sentences. (see Help:Footnotes for a more detailed description). As far as I can see, none of the changes you've made so far have had the sources referenced in this manner (which isn't a problem; it's one of the more complicated aspects of adding content to wikipedia).

If you have any trouble doing this then please do let me know what the sources and changes that you wish to be made are, and I can try and help further.

Best wishes,

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Normally, I would not have done so. However, NawlinWiki, more than any other single user on this site, is the constant target of coordinated off-wiki attacks. These particular examples were childish nonsense to be sure, but I believe that it's well past high time that we stop giving these individuals the satisfaction of being able to see their taunts and other garbage in the edit history. If these were simply a few random vandal attacks, I would never have done so. As it is, I'm amazed that NawlinWiki hasn't simply thrown in the towel; that's a genuine testament to his character and depth of commitment. If you feel that I was incorrect in striking the comments, you or any admin are free to revert me. I'm just fed up with the attacks on this exceptional and valuable user. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; I did it myself. Perhaps its best that the community at large sees what NawlinWiki goes through on a daily basis. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by some of your comments about my behaviour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Orangemarlin. In particular I do not appreciate the implication that I was focussed on "punishment" when I mentioned no such thing; that I "suggest that [I] have the backing of the community in imposing such a restriction" when I suggested no such thing; that I have an "appalling lack of understanding"; that "that [I'm] trying to form a consensus on that matter" when I am not; that I am "focused on proving that a particular party behaved in a poor manner"; that I am "establishing a consensus that states that they should not continue that behaviour in future"; none of these are contained in what I wrote. Please do not misrepresent what I write in this cavalier way. I'm really not happy with all this. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]e're discussing a certain proposition. A consensus might or might not emerge. What are your views on the proposition that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language?" - this shows that you are trying to discern whether or not most people think that OM should not use crude language. The part "a consensus might or might not emerge" shows that following that you are considering trying to form a consensus based on the outcome of the original proposition. I fail to see how a consensus based on a discussion about whether a user should use crude language or not could be anything other than a restriction of some kind on their use of profanity. What kind of consensus did you have in mind?

The above quote also shows that you were considering trying to form a consensus, despite the fact that WQA is not the venue to do that at.

Mediation is not about having the backing of the most people ("I think the community would prefer OM not to use crude language"), or making propositions to other third parties ("What are your views on the proposition that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language?"). Instead, it is about conversing directly with the involved parties, to mediate a reasonable solution to their problem. Most of your comments at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Orangemarlin so far would be more suited to a venue like ANI.

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposition that most people would prefer OM not to use crude language is not the same as the proposition that OM should not use crude language, which in turn is not the same as the proposition that OM should be punished for using crude language. A consensus that the community prefers OM not to use crude language is not a consensus that OM should be restricted from using crude language. I chose my words quite carefully. I explicitly stated that we were discussing a proposition. This is not the same as trying to form a consensus. I say again that you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I have been saying in the face of my careful explanations to the contrary and I do not like it. I've had my say, you've had yours. Good night. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly willing to except that you had a slip of the tongue, and that you do (and did) not mean what you actually said, but I'm surprised that you won't just say that, and instead continue to back up what you said previously. You said, pretty clearly, "a consensus might or might not emerge" in reference to a discussion at WQA (and you still haven't answered my question, what kind of consensus did you have in mind?)

Well, g'night, then, I guess. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I can see clearly that you are not attempting to have a sensible discussion. I'm not even going to bother to ask you what "slip of the tongue" you think I made. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you would have to ask, since it was qualified in my above comment. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:58pm • 04:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. And of course we can all hope that people (including me) were mistaken about that editor, and that he will emerge as a thoughtful contributor to Wikipedia discussion. betsythedevine (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. =) And yes, lets hope so. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPSumner

This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 08:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spitfire,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:AirdropcloseJan18haiti edited.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 7, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-09-07. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Belugaboy, and by now, you and I both have heard of the Motto Shop, and if not, there's a Motto Shop! It's an exclusive place where users can get their own motto to live by on the wiki. It's great, but we're really running slow, in fact, we haven't seen a customer in months. So we thought YOU, the contributors to Motto of the Day, could spread the word to your WikiFriends, heck, order yourself one, whether you have or haven't before. Thank you and warm regards to all of you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Belugaboy (talk) at 15:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Spitfire! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Regina Mader has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regina Mader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Mader until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Chzz  ►  21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. I note that you have filed both the PROD and AfD on this article immediately following my filing of a complaint regarding your abuse of toolserver access: with respect, perhaps you need to take a step backward and consider the situation more rationally. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only been back a few days and already I have fans! --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kitten is being awarded to you for being such a bawse at reverting vandals! So... thanks!

Signalizing (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. Been a while since I've done this, but I'm getting back in the swing of it. ^_^ Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Shield
		In recognition of reverts to Vandalism on my user page, it's my privilege to award this to you. Thanks for being on patrol!

--Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 02:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks very much. It's my pleasure Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 02:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your counter-vandalism work. Have one on me :) RandomAct(talk to me) 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks! =) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed your request for a check to confirm any sleeper account went without reply. Is that right?RaintheOne ^BAM 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Means there were no sleepers. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - Well that is good news. Thanks.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have a request; I'm interested in helping out in the administrative tasks on wikipedia, and in particular I'd like to help with clerking at SPI. I don't have a lot of experience but I would enjoy learning. I noticed that you're one of the current clerks and was wondering if you'd be interested in taking me on as a trainee? Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basalisk, thanks for offering to help. I don't really have anything to add to HelloAnnyong's response here. Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind revisiting your partial endorsement of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paintballxtreme? I suspect but can't prove that Paintballxtreme is autoblocked right now—and right after I just blocked the latest Ligavenezolana sockpuppet, Ligavenezolana3 (talk · contribs). That and the pattern of edits and account creations tonight call into question whether Paintballxtreme is as innocent as he claims. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you that the autoblock that's fired off as a result of you blocking Ligavenezolana3 is #3769503, and it's currently effecting Ligavenezolana and Ligavenezolana3, but does not appear to be effecting Paintballxtreme. Honestly, I would have few qualms about a checkuser running a check on Ligavenezolana, and then taking the resultant IP address to see what other accounts (if any) are sitting on it: that would bring the case to closure while showing a high degree of respect for privacy and the CU policy (although, to be fair, the autoblocks seem to bring some closure of their own). The edit you linked in the SPI case seems to show little more than a removal of a whitespace, behaviour which has already been discussed in the case.

In any case, given that the case was effectively declined by WilliamH I'm disinclined to go against that: would prefer if you were to contact him instead (if you do so, feel free to point him toward my comment here, if you wish).

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user secret of success, accuses me of adding list of names, I want to know where I have included list of names and which edits of mine have become unconstructive??? There are long list of names on tamil and kannada cinema articles why he is not accusing me

(Aarakshan (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If you wish to defend yourself, please do so here: [3]. When you do so, please refrain from calling other editors psychopaths, and please make sure you provide valid counter-arguments. If you are not socking, then that will be the result of the case: please let due process take course, rather than disrupting the investigation, which only makes your own position weaker. It is far better to focus on defending your own position, rather than attacking that of your accuser.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to leave them below. Best wishes,

Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some user has personal grudge over me and is abusing me for no apparent reason, this is really abusive and hurting

(Aarakshan (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I request your kindself to make this situation known to a trusted admin, I want to know why the user has a problem with lists of names??? I will do the same thing in Tamil cinema, In fact there are more list of trivial names in Tamil cinema, than telugu cinema. You please check and tell where on earth my recent edits were destructive??? with respect to Telugu cinema???? article???

(Aarakshan (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I can only repeat what I said above: I suggest you focus on providing a valid defense via the correct process. The SPI report regards suspected misuse of multiple user accounts, it does not necessarily directly concern your content edits, so I can't really help there: the case is about establishing whether you have used multiple accounts, not about whether your content edits are "good" or "bad". If you make your defense using the link I posted above, then a trusted admin will review the case once they're able to get around to it (although that may be a little while, as there are quite a few cases on the go currently). Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to go back an add in a post, just to say I'm sorry if you thought my "insufficent notification" comment was aimed at you (thereby misunderstanding you) - it wasn't, the poster above made a clear point about it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, my apologies. The post was indented out one directly below mine, so I just assumed. Cheers! Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spitfire.Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (1, 2), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently closed the Questionable Pulse username group investigation on the grounds that there was nothing more to investigate.

However, it is impossible for me to believe that, as I asked there be done, a cursury glance could have been given at the following usernames by anyone familiar with that case without it becoming obvious that at least some of them seem highly likely to be part of the same project as the recently blocked ones and so should also be similarly treated.

It also seems clear to me that if this is not done, the bottom of this matter will never be gotten to, and the problem with certain articles at Wikipedia that caused Jimbo Wales to ask that the investigatigation be opened in the first place will never have been understood and addressed.

Here they are:

1. User:U21980
2. User:Scholar999
3. User:Verdell2010
4. User:GoCubs88
5. User:Tomohawkmama
6. User:Churchillaroo
7. User:24.177.124.12

The message by Mr. Wales I refer to above can be found here: Talk:Keith_Raniere#A_few_comments_on_this_article. If it is not clear from that what it has to do with Questionable Pulse, note in JW's contribution history that that he started the whole investigation just after discussing the NXIVM articles just after talking to me about those articles and the very next day clarified what he felt about the way QP left the articles in the above comment, which is basically the way they remain to this day, despite such recent edits as Milo's.

It seems to me all that has been done is that usernames have been blocked that had ceased editing anyway, and the investigators never figured out what was going on or what it was all about, let alone what should or could be done about it.

Please help, as this is a serious matter. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This case had been largely inactive for 5 days and was dragging out for a month. It was closed by another user, I merely archived it. The case seemed to have run it's course, and it did not seem likely that it was going to go anywhere else. The users you link above are all largely stale. Additionally, you need to present evidence (with at least some diffs) when submitting them to SPI, as this is not something we can collect for you; when you mentioned these users on the SPI case you did not appear to provide relevant evidence. Accounts submitted for checking without appropriate evidence can be rejected.

If you wish to correct errors or NPOV isssues in the articles, or get help examining the users' edits for such, then I suggest you start a thread at AN#I or a relevant VP; this would not be something SPI would be especially suited for.

Please also feel free to contact the admin who actually closed the case, HelloAnnyong. Thanks, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you did this did you also mean to create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter/Archive? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I archived it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04/Archive. This was accidental. But looking over the case, it actually may be the best place for it. *laughs* Anyway, I'll have a bit more of a look later and ask another clerk to weigh in; for now I'll just leave it as it is, though. Thank you for spotting that, though! Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason here for leaving the case open has been dealt with now, so I reckon it can be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll archive that now. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We at the Motto of the Day would be extremely grateful if you could review a couple of "special" nominations for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics on the 27th of July 2012. Here is the link to the first nomination, if you can help. The others follow it, and you can add your own ones or improve the existing nominations, of course.
Thank you so very much in advance! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plaque.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the helpSlyhannah (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you don't mind, but for future reference a procedural question: Is it not normal to inform a User that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation/༆ has been opened against them? I notice Kauffner did not inform either of the two editors he has accused of being puppets, but I would expect that an admin would check that this had been done - my apologies if I am mistaken. In any case I have informed Yig Mgo and left a link on his Talk page. You can see my comments that who ever this other vi.wp editor is, I'm familiar enough with Yig Mgo's style and interests (and difficulty with English and templates) to be 100% certain it isn't him, especially given that vi.wp has more than 2 visitors to en.wp WikiProject:VN. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spitfire - I just wanted to make you aware of a test edit I made to the Huggle sandbox. Because of the edit, you were warned, but I have since rolled back both edits. Best, MJ94 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Cheers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments at SPI. There seems to be well-defined procedures for dealing with sock-puppets, less so for meat-puppets. What do you suggest I do? I'm hesitant to take it to ANI and I'm not sure COIN is going to help a situation at AFD. Stalwart111 23:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the AFD has been closed, so that part is resolved. But I would be interested in your advice on meat-puppetry in general, for future reference. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that the AfD has been closed as delete - that hopefully resolves this specific case. (For the record, if they recreate it with the same material, I suggest G4ing, and salting the article if they do this persistently.)

Essentially when I said that we have procedures in place to deal with meatpuppetry, I was thinking of the bullet points under WP:MTPPT, in particular the points that discussions such as AfDs should be decided based on consensus, not !votes, and the fact that in such discussions it is common practice to tag comments by SPAs with {{spa}}. This means that although the meatpuppetry is an annoyance, it should not have any real effect on the outcome of any discussions. It is also worth noting that rules such as 3rr are generally considered to apply to meatpuppets as though they were one account, and that if a blocked user is recruiting meatpuppets, RBI is normally applied.

SPI is generally happy to receive reports of meatpuppetry, as meats being used to evade a block/etc can generally be treated in the same way as socks, and we tend to have people around who are good at handling this kind of abuse. You may find this is a better venue to use for such abuse than ANI/COIN - although in the particular case of Justice International, I feel that you probably would have been fine just tagging the comments on the AfD as SPAs, and leaving it at that. You only really need to escalate the matter to SPI if they start being used to edit war, evade blocks, or other serious breaches of policy - just supporting each other at AfD isn't really going to get them anywhere, and will most likely be ignored by the reviewing admin, especially if their comments are clearly marked by the SPA template, and since it is difficult to apply sanctions for this kind of abuse an SPI case isn't really likely to go anywhere.

To clarify and sum-up what I'm getting at:

• If meats are being used to support each other in a discussion, you can generally tag them as SPAs, and let consensus take it's course.
• If they are being used to edit war, institute a campaign of serious vandalism, harass an editor, or if they are being recruited by a blocked editor or otherwise making serious breaches of policy, and RBI isn't working/is being overwhelmed, then an SPI case can help to combat the problem.

Just some general thoughts. Sorry for waffling. Let me know if you want me to waffle some more if anything is left unclear - I could probably keep going all day. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ANI is also capable of dealing with these reports - they're just not as good at it.

Great advice - thanks! I spend a fair bit of time at AFD and so have dealt with a few of out-and-out sock-puppeteers (especially in cases of WP:PROMO and WP:NOBLE) and have sent a few to SPI. But I'm still getting my head around meat-puppetry. I guess I see WP editing as a fairly individual thing - I can't think of one of my mates who would jump on WP to help me "win an argument", so the concept is a bit alien to me. But your advice is awesome and I appreciate you spending the time to run through it all. Gives me a good road-map for future cases (though here's hoping they are few and far between). Thanks mate! Stalwart111 12:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your great (and comprehensive) advice. Really appreciate it! Stalwart111 12:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pleasure to help. If you ever have any other general queries or issues relating to sock/meat feel free to let me know (or any of the other SPI clerks - we're a fairly helpful bunch!). Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this was an open proxy on 8080. The timing of the account creation, the subsequent edits and the use of an open proxy in China (Mikemikev has no need of these since he can use a whole series of dynamic IPs in Korea), made this more likely to be the IP hopper previously editing from the range 101.0.71.0/24. I have mentioned your confirmation of the open proxy at the current thread on the IP hopper on WP:AN, at WP:OP and on User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who originally blocked the IP range. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank-you very much for helping me and Eve Flynn, I am very grateful. I would just like to say that you made the right decision and thanks for your advice. Lorccán Duignan (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mention something about an "SPI case taken out against me". What's going on and why don't I know about it? If somebody is "taking out a case against me" with WP administration, I would think part of the process would be to inform me. BTW, I keep the "Iamcuriousblue" account separate from the one under my real name for a reason, given that *everything* on Wikipedia comes up on Google searches, and having to mention that there defeats the purpose. I am open about the fact that the "Iamcuriousblue" account is a sock and don't try to hide it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at this, it appears the case was taken out by somebody with a possibly axe to grind, possibly taking issue with a perceived POV of mine that might not align with theirs. I they disagree with edits I've made and think there's any POV pushing on my part (something I very much try to avoid, BTW), they can use the normal procedure of taking it to the talk page of the article, and perhaps informing me directly via my talk page. BTW, in answer to the query, I try to keep the category of articles I edit under each account separate and generally only edit a particular article under one name. Nevertheless, I've slipped up and been logged into one account when I thought I'd been logged into another. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - if you prefer not to tag both accounts that's fine. Apologies for not linking the case, I thought you were already aware of it (for what it's worth, it is not necessary for users to be notified if they are the subject of an SPI case).

Cheers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that the original block was not the correct block, if you see this paticular edit summary [[4]] and the fact that they are named for a marketing company it was a correct block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's another matter - you can't block a user or an IP address for block evasion of a username block: that's definitive. It seems fairly obvious that John was aware of the COI problems when he set the block, but he decided it was not yet enough to justify a COI/spam block, and instead did a username block.

To then use this username block as cover for shuffling aside a problematic editor would be unacceptable. If you want to get the user blocked for spam/COI issues, that needs to be done via the proper procedures.

Cheers! Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. please continue this at User_talk:Yunshui#Oops for sake of clarity Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually I reported the account to vandalism board as promotion only. I have commented on Yunshi's page as well. P.s. What's with all the typos lol ;). You don't have to answer that cause I make them often just thought I'd give you a little guff over it! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. My typing is all over the place today. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've moved you to the inactive section of the SPI clerks page since you haven't clerked in over a month, but feel free to move yourself back to active when you return. Hope all is well! --Rschen7754 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know my mistake. :) It was my first time to leave a welcome messages. I deleted the mistaken words. Have a great day. -IloveU4ever (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Hello Spitfire,

It has come to my attention that a certain person on Wikipedia (EWAdams) is in fact Ernest W. Adams, as so admitted by him. He has been active on his own Wikipedia page, editing it to be more favorable for him, such as removing the notability dispute tag, and arguing against others. As I am not fully understanding of all of Wikipedia's rules I would like your help in this matter.  

The talk page for reference; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ernest_W._Adams User's page;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EWAdams

Avion267 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you made multiple contributions to several different state government public health agencies. I wanted to invite you to contribute to one that I drafted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tennessee_Department_of_Health Thank you for your help and interest! TNhealthwebmast (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spitfire! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect For A Moment (Brooke Hogan Ssong). Since you had some involvement with the For A Moment (Brooke Hogan Ssong) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Samuel Robbins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not establish notability of subject. A powder monkey in the Royal Navy with no other biographical information is not notable. Being mentioned in a novel does not provide notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dumelow (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oberoi International School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oberoi International School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bez 2 Trailer Sailer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable boat type. Noble Marine is an insurance company giving quotes about insuring the boat (not sigcov) and the accident report is a primary source (doesn't support notability). The article in Practical Boat Owner isn't bad, but only one article is not sufficient to support notability of either the boat type or the accident.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Beneteau Wizz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

First and second sources unaccessible, third source has no information on the Wizz winning any competition, Fourth source is likely an advertisement, and the page does not seem very notable compared to the other boats made by Beneteau.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MessageApp (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]