User talk:Heymid/2010 October

Re

Thanks for your support! BineMai 10:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. HeyMid (contributions) 11:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you editing someone's user talk page?

I have reverted you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&diff=prev&oldid=388935643

There is no reason for you to be editing this user talk page, which happens to be on my watchlist. Your reversion removed more than a post from a banned editor. Removing posts from the talk pages of other editors is a sensitive matter at the best of times, and doing so in a way that removes content that has been there for some time is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand. HeyMid (contributions) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Heymid! This is one of the things you've previously said you wouldn't do. TFOWR 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Refactoring, does it include removing messages from others' pages? HeyMid (contributions) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Heymid, go write an article or whack a vandal or something. Surely you can think of something better to do than get yourself blocked over removing messages from someone else's talk page? Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes it does. TFOWR 18:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Good diff. HeyMid (contributions) 18:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Other people's talk pages

You are STILL tampering with other people's talk pages. How many times do you need to be told; DON'T DO THAT? You did it here and here and here, and I don't know how many more times. You have been told many times in the past that interfering with other users' talk page is disruptive editing. You were very lucky to get unblocked in the past, and now you are demonstrating that you either don't understand simple English well enough to be able to contribute to this encyclopedia, or more likely that you are being deliberately disruptive.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did in the pages mentioned above, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, for goodness' sake pay attention to David's message. I came here to notify you I was about to post to WP:ANI. I haven't - and won't at this time - but you do need to stop refactoring other editors' comments, and you do need to keep the promises you made when you were last unblocked. For the record, here's what I was about to post to ANI. This really is your absolutely, last, final chance. No more second chances.

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Block_review:_Heymid

Heymid has previously been blocked, for a week, and was unblocked after promising to avoid certain behaviour.

Since then Heymid has continued to refactor other editors' posts. On a previous occasion Heymid committed to not removing posts. However, Risker has just had to warn Heymid again.

I feel torn by this. On the one hand I've previously argued for Heymid, as I believe they have the potential to be an enthusiastic and constructive editor. On the other hand, there's just too much time being burned on this, and the message doesn't seem to be sinking in. Both HJ Mitchell (talk) and myself have made ourselves available to Heymid to ask questions prior to Heymid doing anything potentially controversial - unfortunately that doesn't seem to have helped.

Heymid has been blocked twice: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Heymid. On both occasions the blocks were lifted early (indeed, I argued for an unblock on at least one occasion). In hindsight I feel that that may have been a mistake, as it sent the wrong message. Consequently I'm looking to the community: I believe Heymid's behaviour is disruptive, and I believe that a block would prevent further disruption. I believe a fortnight is appropriate, but I'm open to other suggestions.

See also: User_talk:Heymid/2010 September#Blocked.

I don't know if the community would be happy with a fortnight's block - they might feel it's too much, but then again they might feel an indef block is better. Heymid, don't find out the hard way. Concentrate on productive editing. You don't need to mess around with talkpages. There are plenty of things far more important. Building an encyclopaedia is obvious one. HJ's suggested you should focus on that, and I doubt you'd find anyone who'd disagree. TFOWR 19:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this to inform other users who are not aware of these issues? Also, I am not ignoring anyone – I am reading everyone's messages brought to this talk page. However, sometimes I don't really know how I should answer, depending on the warning messages. HeyMid (contributions) 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't stopped doing the very thing that got you blocked before. How much clearer can we be? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You say "I am reading everyone's messages brought to this talk page", but you have said that before, and time and time again you go on doing what you have been warned against, and what you have told us you won't do. Please answer a simple question: Do you not understand what many of us have been telling you for months, or are you deliberately ignoring what you've been told? It has to be one or the other, and we'd like to know which. David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove sourced information

Hello,

I have reverted this removal of sourced information. If you want to remove information that has a clear, explicit source, I think it would be better to explain why in the talk page for the concerned article, then wait for others so get a chance to respond.

- Tournesol (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've actually removed this again because it is primary-sourced navel gazing. –xeno^talk 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's understandable, whereas Heymid's Removing inaccurate statement wasn't. - Tournesol (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - on the day he made the statement the article didn't exist - it was created the very next day =] –xeno^talk 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why...

... did you just revert my edit in Markize??? --94.216.93.200 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was likely an accident. Sorry. HeyMid (contributions) 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty

...of adding Igloo to your vector.js (admins can edit other users' .js and .css pages). User:Ale jrb/Scripts/igloo should have all the information you need for it. Load it up when you're ready and see what you make of it. It's pretty easy to use. "Q" reverts the edit and space skips to the next diff. Anything else you need? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work: "Warning: igloo server returned an error: token-mismatch: your request token could not be verified by the server. Loading stopped." HeyMid (contributions) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And this only seems to apply for the secure Wikipedia. HeyMid (contributions) 14:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, it doesn't work on the secure server. At least not in the current version. You could always switch between the secure and normal servers when you want to use Igloo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's currently only in an alpha build, so that's understandable. HeyMid (contributions) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

Take it slowly when you start out with Huggle. It's easy to get carried away if every second diff you look at actually is vandalism, but all edits 198.85.166.213 (talk · contribs) made today were perfectly good-faithed and in no way deserved an only-warning.
Amalthea 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd echo Amalthea's advice to take it slow, but don't be discouraged. I've seen you make a lot of good reverts and AIV reports today and I know it's easy to screw up. Hell, I'm an admin and an editor with considerable experience, and I've made a mess with Igloo. Just... be careful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of the reverts I made were by accident. But it is fun – I reported multiple IPs (and one username) yesterday, including an automated report. However, that IP made some weird capitalization changes in headlines, which I believed were done in bad-faith. By the way, is it possible to report users with Igloo? HeyMid (contributions) 06:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's a common sort of new user edit you will see; to the uninitiated non-caps headers can look "wrong" so they try to fix them :) With such edits, while using automated tools you should always assume good faith, even if you have suspicions it might be bad faith. The tools are really only for overt vandalism (to be on the safe side). It's simple enough to jump from Huggle to your browser and investigate the edits more thoroughly --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) I've never used Igloo myself, but I believe Igloo usually automates the reports (I saw User:NerdyScienceDude report himself' to AIV after reverting his mistakes 4 times, for example). ' GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-masochism! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's some "vandalism" I reverted yesterday. I saw an editor replace lots of text with the word "propaganda" and assumed it was vandalism. It wasn't until I started looking for references that I realised what was really happening: the editor was removing incorrect information. If you look at the article now you can see that the version I'd reverted to was the wrong version. (I have since apologised to the editor I was reverting...) TFOWR 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2010 AIK IF exhibition game schedule

Template:2010 AIK IF exhibition game schedule 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. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fastra II

Just noticed that you were Swedish. Nice meeting fellow Scandinavians on Wikipedia :) I've placed your article on hold, see Talk:Fastra II/GA2. Just some small stuff now, and you'll have a GA. Best of luck, Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki

Heymid, this is just a request, not a warning, but I'd like you to seriously think about it.

Stop posting at Protector of Wiki's talkpage.

Protector of Wiki is currently blocked, and two editors - UncleDouggie and Sonia - are doing their best to resolve that. I really feel it's best if we leave them alone to do that. Your posts are adding much more "heat" than "light" - they're making the situation worse. Posting at Protector of WIki's talkpage isn't "keeping your head down", it's not "focussing on article work". I don't really understand why you feel the need to do it, either. Remember that many other editors, including admins, will be watching Protector of Wiki's talkpage and forming their own opinions on your posts there - that's not something you necessarily want to be happening. Let UncleDouggie and Sonia get on with their task of mentoring Protector of Wiki, and leave them alone to do it. TFOWR 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already stopped. I have now clearly written everything I've wanted to say and there are no reasons left for me to keep posting there. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 12:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but I first raised this with you via email on 6 October. I raised it again on POW's talkpage on 7 October (in a general comment to all editors). You've posted at POW's talkpage since then. One of the concerns I have with your editing is that you seem to miss warnings - perhaps it's because people make them too polite? Regardless, you do need to pay more attention to things other editors say to you - we're saying these things to help you: I wanted you to stop posting at POW's talkpage because it draws more attention to you - and that's something you really want to be avoiding right now. Like HJ said: keep your head down, and focus on article work. TFOWR 12:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to article work when I have time to do so, but as of now I don't have. HeyMid (contributions) 12:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but not really the point. When you do have time - focus on article work, not posting on talkpages. TFOWR 12:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24

I blocked his talk page access because he was making unblock requests that didn't address the reason for his block, socking to evade his block, and he wasn't even capable of formatting the unblock requests properly. No reason to waste further admin time processing his requests.

BTW, please use my talk page for matters like this.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I simply thought the reason was unclear (you only mentioned socking at his talk page). HeyMid (contributions) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realize...

...that taking the unblock request to WP:AN probably did more damage to it, and to the reputation of the editor than anything else possibly could have. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, and it was yet another in a long history of meddlesome behaviour. Taking an unblock request to WP:AN should be done by someone familiar with the editor who is willing to present a case for them, not just say "hey guys, what do you think?" –xeno^talk 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand what you mean. As he was blocked due to an ANI discussion he has to be unblocked through the same process. Do you mean that I should've not started the AN discussion and instead let an uninvolved administrator just review their unblock request? HeyMid (contributions) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As the first-responder astutely pointed out, you should've left it to their mentors. –xeno^talk 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And now dozens of admins have reviewed him and his actions - have viewed them as poor - and it's neither going to go well for him, and has probably pulled your reputation down as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

They mean you should be focussing on article-work and leaving Protector of Wiki's talkpage alone. Not doing this, and not doing this. Crikey, Heymid, how many times and in how many ways do we need to say this? Keep your head down, focus on article work, don't mess around with talkpages. TFOWR 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is the truth: Yes, I did understand the risk of TFOWR accusing me for this, but I decided to take the risk by being bold. HeyMid (contributions) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness: you've done some dumb things in your Wikipedia career, but this was the dumbest that I can recall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done far more dumb things than this one, see my contributions a week ago. Also, I believe that it was not a must for everyone to comment on that AN thread. And it's up to you whether you wanted to support or oppose. I'm not sure if I've done a mistake (unblock request may've been declined anyways). HeyMid (contributions) 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Heymid, I've blocked you for one week.

When HJ unblocked you, it was because you had made several promises. In particular, you had promised that you would:

1. stop refactoring other's comments
2. follow consensus, and seek consensus when needed, before making controversial edits

Since then you've continued to refactor other editors' comments. You've done this on several occasions, resulting in David Biddulph (talk) giving you this warning. Throughout all this I've tried to advise you - both on your talkpage and via email - to stop. After the incident that led to David's warning, I very nearly blocked you then - indeed, it was David's warning that stopped me. You will remember that I left this message.

I've also advised you several times to stay away from Protector of Wiki (talk)'s talkpage. I can dig out diffs if necessary, but I'm sure you'll remember. Despite this, after Giftiger wunsch (talk) posted this at POW's talkpage you came along shortly after and refactored GW's comment.

POW is being mentored by UncleDouggie (talk) and Sonia (talk), with the intention that POW would request an unblock when they felt the time was right. The decision to make an unblock request, the decision as to where to make that request - that decision was POW's, UncleDouggie's, and Sonia's decision. This was, as other admins have commented above, dumb. You should have sought consensus before doing anything as controversial as this.

Heymid, you need to pay attention to what other editors are telling you. You've ignored advice and instructions too many times. It's disruptive. It's breaking the promises you made when you were last blocked. I hope when your current block expires you'll pay more attention and be less disruptive. TFOWR 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heymid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK, I realize I was stupid this time. A week ago I refactored others' comments (removed comments, which I've completely stopped with since). Now I did the most stupid thing in the world by starting an AN discussion without ever thinking what would happen; I thought consensus would be to unblock the user, but I was apparently wrong. Disruptive editing? HeyMid (contributions) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've spent some time reviewing everything here. After considering your unblock request, I am going to decline it, and here is why: The text of this unblock request does not show an understanding that sanctions occur for the entirety of your career at Wikipedia. Besides being snarky and sarcastic, this unblock request makes it seem like you were blocked for the sole action of starting the AN discussion, without considering the context of your own history here at Wikipedia. Because you show no acknowledgement that the block is done, not for a single incident or small set of incidents, but for an extended pattern of behavior, it does not appear that you understand why you are blocked. What this means is that, if you were unblocked, you would likely go back to the same behavior. So this block will remain until you can show evidence that you understand why you are blocked, and especially how you could change your actions in the future to not be blocked again. Jayron32 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I probably wouldn't have blocked you for it, but your post to AN was just another in a long series of meddling behaviour - sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Either you just don't get it, or you're intentionally testing your limits. The outlook isn't good in either case. –xeno^talk 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heymid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I take back what I wrote in my previous unblock request. I find it ridiculous I am blocked for another week. First of all, forget the refactoring part, as I have stopped doing that since a week before the block. Secondly, what did I do wrong when I started the AN discussion; I started it completely in good faith, mostly in respect to Protector of Wiki, as no admin likely wouldn't have reviewed their unblock request without a meta discussion. If a user is blocked due to a community discussion, they have to be unblocked through the same process. The problem here was I started the AN discussion as an uninvolved editor; Sonia and UncleDouggie were/are their mentors, and I have several times been asked to stop involving myself in PoW. However, I decided to go bold. However, it turned out to be dumb by myself, so that just punished myself. However, the AN discussion showed there is no community consensus to unblock PoW. I showed my support for PoW's unblock request, however.

But with this one week block, I am wondering something: Why are the administrators spending time on blocking users who maybe do one or two things wrong? Have I missed something here? I have been a problematic user for everyone, since a few months back. However, I have slowly been progressing, and now there is only one issue left. But I just don't understand what was the disruptive part in starting the AN discussion. What more do you want from me (or any editor)? Does someone realize why we've lost thousands of constructive contributors in just a few years? I do. It's ridiculous if no-one realizes why: It's because we block users who do one or two things wrong, but can hardly justify a block. I know that Wikipedia isn't a social network. However, is this how users (including me) should be treated? If I were an admin I wouldn't have blocked a user starting an AN discussion as an uninvolved editor.

I'm realizing something more: Why are we restricting users from starting AN(/I) discussions as an uninvolved editor? I hardly could see the controversial part(s) of my post. Somehow it seems that we (except for me) have forgotten that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. I know that Wikipedia also is a community, but for that reason, why are administrators banning me from meddling in community-related discussions? Administrators, please use your admin powers for more constructive things than simply blocking constructive users who've almost reached the "finish line"; I'm almost there! So why have TFOWR blocked me, then? Just a few things to correct, then it's fine. For me, it seems that everyone believes I am always the user to blame. But I also believe administrators (or even other regular users) may also make mistakes. As we are only people, we make mistakes, and we will continue to make them.

Therefore I believe TFOWR has misused his administrative tools, which is the reason as to why I'm requesting unblocking now. Also, please don't simply decline this unblock request using {{subst:Decline reason here}}, and re-think twice before declining this unblock request at all. If I'm not unblocked, it should at least be shorted down to Sunday (17 October), or I may go block evasion (although not permitted) to go and get my article duties completed. I just want to edit Wikipedia and not spend time trying to get myself through the unblock process over and over. I actually appreciated HJ Mitchell's block, but this one was far more controversial. Thank you for your time. HeyMid (contributions) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The comments in this unblock request continue to show you just don't get it. You aren't being blocked for doing one or two things wrong. You have been blocked for doing lots of things wrong. And then continuing to do them over and over again dispite being told about them. You say you are consistantly improving, but I am sorry you simply are not improving, if anything you have been getting worse. You threaten to sock puppet in this unblock request, that alone earns you a denied unblock request. I am actually contemplating extending your block for making such a threat. At the very least I am now removing your talk page access. DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will point out that threatening block evasion is not a good idea. It itself is disruptive, and may be indicative of an obsession for editing. What is so vital in those articles that the edits couldn't wait a week? Syrthiss (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010

Archived section: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010.

Heymid, I've raised an issue at ANI. It relates to you and the other username listed above. Contact me via email if you have any concerns you want raised at ANI. TFOWR 22:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelpme}}

My block has been extended to indefinite due to suspicion of probable socking by me. I do admit that I do have a personal interest in AIK IF (a Swedish ice hockey team in Solna, Stockholm), but I have not been socking during my block, even though I do admit to having threatened with block evasion. I believe User:AIK IF 2010 is an impersonator who intentionally wanted me indefblocked; I have not created a new account since the block. I therefore request that a CheckUser be made between both of us. Thanks in advance. (Yes, edit summaries like "Updating standings" look like me, but I have only been using one account.) HeyMid (contributions) 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI a CU was undertaken; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heymid, but it's not conclusive either way. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For me, it is unpleasant to have a suspicion saying that I am a sock of someone, when I haven't socked. Apparently, the ANI discussion seems to conclude that User:AIK IF 2010 was a sock of me.

The user who impersonated me was using an open proxy. I've never used open proxies. I've always been using my normal IP. I have not evaded my block.

I have not removed any comments nor reverted any, since a week before the block. Look at this edit at Talk:Wessex. I've never heard of Wessex. And that user's reversions at this user talk page. I would've never revert a declined unblock request.

Trolls/Impersonators will remain on Wikipedia, no matter how many times we tell them to "go troll somewhere else" or "stop impersonating other users", because trolls are trolls. That troll has now managed to put me in the corner and get me indefinitely blocked from this Wikipedia.

I had to do homework yesterday, and I slept at approximately 21:00 UTC time. 48 minutes later, the AIK IF 2010 account was created.

I do accept that this SPI mystery may never be resolved, but is an ArbCom case for this required? I do understand that WP:DUCK suggests that I have been socking to evade my block. But I do at least hope that someone starts realizing that I have not been evading my block. Trolls are way more skilled than what many people think. Because I am not a sock of User:AIK IF 2010, that user will never reply at their user talk page.

In the technical world, this will probably never be resolved. That troll probably was a bit exaggerated. But if the conclusion is that I used that account to evade my block, maybe we should shutdown Wikipedia? I just don't know how I should convince others that I am not a sock of that account and that I have not been evading my block at all. If my Wikipedia career should end just because of an impersonator, why not shutdown Wikipedia? I can repeat the same sentence over and over again: I have not used a sock to evade my block and I have not been evading my block at all.

But fortunately, Wikipedia is not my entire life. I have also other things to do than simply being on Wikipedia, but I really hope that a troll should not be ending my Wikipedia career. Thank you for your time. HeyMid (contributions) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't really know who was involved in this fake flag sock puppetry, but the only user I can think of is User:Krm500. Maybe a CheckUser run should be made between both of us? HeyMid (contributions) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you accuse a good faith editor of impersonating you who has never done anything that would remotely indicate they would do something like this. Just because they disagreed with you on a page about something once in now way means they would impersonate you. Likely the impersonator if there was one would be someone you didn't know. That being said its pretty clear it wasn't an impersonation. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I immediately take that back. I admit that I was completely wrong. Please remove that section from his talk page. HeyMid (contributions) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You've struck the comment; that's fine. I informed Kmm that you had mentioned their name since it's generally good "wikiquette" to inform other users when they're being discussed. If Kmm looks at the discussion they'll see that the comment was stricken. It's up to Kmm as to whether or not they want to removet he thread from their talk page now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GW, Krm has replied at his talk page now. HeyMid (contributions) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand you. But I didn't sock; I've never used open proxies. It was just a skilled impersonator. I know that there is no way to prove that I did not sock. Also, look at my user creation log. I've created two accounts using this account, but I've used neither of them. As I have not been socking, it would probably be a mistake if I would admit it. What would've happened if I'd admitted this immediately (if you are assuming I did sock)? HeyMid (contributions) 18:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, it might be worth considering the "Standard Offer". Consider contributing to another Wikimedia project, and if you can show improvement and the ability to avoid stuff that got you in trouble before I very much doubt an unblocking would be hard to arrange :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But as I didn't sock, there is no way for me to promise to avoid sock puppetry in 6 months. If another user (or the same one) creates a new impersonation account of me, I am once again an innocent victim. HeyMid (contributions) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the big issue is that this is the 2nd WMF project he has been long term blocked on. He is running out of options. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true, I am. HeyMid (contributions) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• The general consensus at ANI is that due to inconclusive checkuser findings, you are being given the benefit of the doubt and are now unblocked (your original block having been reduced to 'time served'). However, please be mindful that you had run out of chances even before this incident. Henceforth, you should avoid meta spaces as much as possible and concentrate on improving the mainspace. –xeno^talk 13:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What does "time served" mean? Does it mean I've been given several extra hours to edit, compared to the original block length? Oh, and as a result of the SPI, MuZemike blocked my IP for 3 months, so please unblock (censored), as that block prevents me from editing. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contributions) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It means that I have not overturned the original 1 week block, I've simply reduced it slightly. –xeno^talk 13:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • OK. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 13:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re [1], was the edit by AIK IF 2010 inaccurate (it matches http://www.oddsportal.com/hockey/sweden/elitserien/standings/)? –xeno^talk 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It maybe was accurate, but that user forgot to change the team spots (1, 2, 3, etc). HeyMid (contributions) 13:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to fix that up to be accurate. Thanks! –xeno^talk 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't 100% accurate. As I was unable to update the standings due to the original one week block, that user missed some things like GF and GA. I can fix that. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

You had several warnings regarding your behavior. You need to stop playing around and focus on building the encyclopedia. I'm willing to mentor you to become a productive wikipedia editor. You had some potencial, and still do. Are you willing to accept my mentoring. Note I don't deal with bullshit so one mess up and I'll make sure you get blocked indef. Secret ^account 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I promise. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I would mentor you, try to focus on article work as it's your best chance to be a productive editor. Also go though AFDs and other places that needs help like Wikipedia:Copyright problems, if you need any help, just go to my talk page. I would be looking at your contribs in a weekly basis to see if you are doing a good job. Thanks Secret ^account 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

It's actually a combination of two scripts: User:Anomie/linkclassifier and popups. Link classifier highlights links to disambig pages in yellow so I can find them easily, then I use popups with a couple of options enabled to do the actual fixing. Check out my vector.js to see which options I used. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. It worked. Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 09:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

HockeyAllsvenskan

For some reason that I do not really understand, the 2010-11 HockeyAllsvenskan season page has been removed (it redirects to the HockeyAllsvenskan main page). That would have been a suitable page to show updated statistics. But even then, I do not know if I would post often enough to regularly have that page up to date. So if you know why the page in question was removed or want to take on the task of keeping updated Allsvenskan statistics, feel free to do so. If you have any questions you can contact me. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did redirect it to the main page, because I'm uncertain as to whether it needs its own article or not. HeyMid (contributions) 08:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On article-space work...

Heymid, one thing you really do not want to be doing right now is posting here. It's a heated situation, and you are not likely to help, and you are likely to get into trouble. This is just my advice: I can't stop you posting there if you really feel you have to, but it is not likely to end well if you do. Walk away from that talkpage. TFOWR 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just a note, as that message no longer applied. HeyMid (contributions) 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)