Xn4

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Dravecky (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for letting me know, Dravecky! Xn4 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dravecky (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! Xn4 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

So true. Is there a template for that reply? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be too sad to make one. Xn4 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Golly. Thank you very much, bibliomaniac! Xn4 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

What a pleasant surprise! Thank you very much. And congratulations on having your own day, too! Bencherlite^Talk 06:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure! Xn4 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link; nice page. Given that the paintings exhibited in the AC were portraits rather than landscapes, do you know – aside from his family connection – why the Club let him hang them in their premises? Were any of them of AC luminaries? Ericoides (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I can't fathom that. The best clues may be in the names of the two sitters for portraits which are given. "The Lady Kinross", because of the word 'The', must be the wife of John Balfour, 1st Baron Kinross, whom I can't trace as an alpinist. The only Russell Bryde I can find is an American from Williamson, Illinois. It clearly wasn't a commercial exhibition, in the usual sense of the pictures being for sale. The Club seems an odd choice for an exhibition of portraits, except that I suppose Douglas may have been after more work and saw the members as a hopeful target group. He was, after all, a sportsman himself. Xn4 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that Peter Tillemans has an entry in the ODNB.[1] Would greatly appreciate if you could add anything of interest (there's an East Angliangle here!). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the anon. ODNB additions! Ericoides (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wondered whether you'd resist the charms of a red-linked London club and concluded that you wouldn't... Thanks for the additional info and the link. Just a quick query; it struck me as odd that he died on 17 Nov. (the date given at the Tate website) and was buried on 7 Dec. Noakes gives his d.o.d. as 5 Dec., which seems much more reasonable and is the one I've used. What does ODNB say on this? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The ODNB agrees. It says "In 1733 Tillemans retired to Richmond, Surrey, and died on 5 December 1734 while staying at Little Haugh Hall. He was buried on 7 December at Stowlangtoft church, Suffolk." Xn4 (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks. Ericoides (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No trouble. Xn4 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for your help on this one. Ericoides (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the barnstar, was a nice surprize when I logged in this morning. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Richly deserved! Xn4 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)‎Reply

No trouble, I've left some thoughts there. Xn4 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

5 p.m. EST. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Doug. Thank you for that, though my effort was quite small. Xn4 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the DYK to the Hall of Fame Xn4. Even now, there is a discussion for deleting articles.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No trouble in the update, Doug. Yes, I saw that discussion. There are some complicated issues there. Regards, Xn4 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Xn4, Just in case I forgot to let you know, this is the letter I received from the Church of Saint Peter in New York.

She left her church address and an email address for follow up.-Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, Doug, on following the story up, though the news is puzzling, isn't it? It was good of Patricia Ruggiero to go to so much trouble. The most likely interpretation is probably that the snuffbox-tombstone was a complete invention (or an idea which never happened) but which someone gave credence to until it was printed as a fact. In those days, a tombstone shaped like a snuffbox would, I think, have seemed whimsical to the point of being irreligious. People did do stranger things, but solid tradesmen rarely. If such a stone was ever there, some later Lorillard (or minister) might have replaced it, but (failing any kind of reliable source) as it seems even the grave isn't where it's said to be I think the tombstone should be treated as a fable.

Of course, as Lorillard has failed to turn up in that church's records at all, he must be somewhere else, so it's just possible that such a tomb is merely in another place. In any event, it might be worth asking the Lorillard company (which in the past has published various historical leaflets) if the family knows where he's buried. One guesses they do, as to lose such an ancestor would be careless. Xn4 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dravecky (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for this. Xn4 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Impressed. Thanks, Dzw49 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just had a quick look and it doesn't appear to be a 5x-expansion. Are you sure you excluded the quotes in your count? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh my, do you ever read the DYK discussion page? The quotation thing has been controversial but you might want to check with Gatoclass if there has been any change of the rules on that. I've been inactive on DYK for a while now. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be best to add it back on the 27th, yes. Wizardman 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh my, I don't look at the DYK discussion page very much, but thanks to you both for your help. Xn4 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me. Mario1987 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• If you look at my monobook.js page you will see a code. Make yourself a similar page and paste the code, and in the left part of the page at "Toolbox" you will have a "Page size" button. Click on that and look at the "Prose text" and you will see what i'm talking about. Mario1987 17:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dravecky (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Dravecky! Xn4 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Dravecky (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, Dravecky! Xn4 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Xn4:

Do you have any news of the great one that you are permitted to share? Every time I open the page for Ref Dek/Humanities, there is a small bit of me that expects to see her name at the bottom of a thorough and interesting response. My late-night reading has so little of new knowledge in it since Clio left us. As you can tell, I still miss her. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alas, no news to pass on, Bielle. But Clio quondam Clioque futura? We live in hope. Xn4 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Xn4. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your input would be appreciated on the above article to improve its grammer and style. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll look at its grammar (and spelling!) Xn4 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Great improvements, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No trouble. Xn4 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded the article and submitted for G.A.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removed your name from credit. Wanted to show you how much appreciation I have for the work you put in on the article. Receiving additional Alt hooks, which hopefully one will be agreed upon and chosen. Working on making improvements for G.A. User talk:Doug Coldwell#Conclusion of the American Civil War based on excellent suggestions from User:Hlj. Really appreciate everyone's input. Thanks much!!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice article! Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Gatoclass! Xn4 (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Xn4. Based upon conclusive CheckUser evidence located at the above sockpuppet case you have been found to have been operating multiple abusive sockpuppets. As such, all of your puppets have been indef blocked and if you continue to do so this account will be too. Consider this your only and last warning. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xn4/Archive and Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xn4

Your use of a sockpuppet farm has created a false consensus on the British India page, and you used sockpuppet User:Strawless to break you word to me.[2][3][4].

Since that deception, with that sock puppet and others you have relentlessly pressed for British India to be a page much larger than others agreed to, both on the talk pages, and in active edits. You have wasted a lot of time of several editors in particular User:Fowler&fowler through your bad faith editing and gaming the system.

It seems to me that through the use of sockpuppets to enforce your views on the British India and British Raj articles you have shown obsessive behaviour, so I am placing a three month ban on you editing the British India, and the British Raj pages and their talk pages. This ban also includes any article, and its talk page, which is is linked via a {{main}} template from either of those two articles.

At the end of three months you may resume editing in this area but for a further month the WP:1RR rule applies to you.

So that the dates are clear: the initial ban lasts up to and including the last day in May 2009, the 1RR lasts throughout June 2009.

Because of your use of sockpuppets, during the next four months you are not to encourage others to edit any of these articles or post to the talk pages of these articles, as editors who edit these pages in good faith after you have made such a request, are in danger of being seen as sockpuppet accounts.

You may appeal to WP:ANI if you wish, or as this issue is also covered by Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption by placing {{unblock|Your reason here}} on this page. If other administrators consider that I have been harsh or unreasonable then I will consider their points of view and review this decision. If you make such an appeal then please inform me on my talk page. However I must warn you that some administrators may consider my ban a light one and impose further sanctions if you appeal my decision. --PBS (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is all quite wrong. Anyone who looks at File:Strawless and Xn4.png will see that Strawless and I have several times been editing at the same time. As I look at it, the chart shows nothing like "tag team editing" and while I agree that "they rarely edit at the same time", I do not know what significance there is in that. More important, there was a period of more than a month in 2008 when I was in France and Strawless (presumably) was not. Other users may have more to say. Xn4 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The basis for the blocks was not solely from that graph, but from the checkuser evidence that confirmed your connection to more than one account. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Peter. Yes, I understand that, but I have a shared IP address which is part of a large network. Once before, I and several other editors were identified as sockpuppets of a problem user, but after a short argument this was undone (see Unblock request at User talk:Xn4/Archive 2). Xn4 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that this is merely a ban on my editing particular pages for a short time, which seems very odd. I am not suspended, merely removed from a particular discussion. How very convenient to PBS, who is on the other side of the argument! In any event, it seems that while I am accused of sockpuppetry and banned from two pages, others on the same network as me are banned permanently from Wikipedia as suspected sockpuppets. I expect some of them will have their own objections to this. Xn4 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another member of the check user team has confirmed the findings, which means it is now be found and confirmed by the check user team. If the check user team is correct and you have indeed been using sockpuppets an apology would go a long way to restoring people's confidence in your good faith.

The reason for me banning you from contributing to a specific area of Wikipedia is because I know the history of your edits to the articles and contributions to the article talk pages. A quick look at your contributions shows that you also edit in other areas and as I am not going to look into them to see if there is a similar pattern of behaviour, I would not consider it correct for me to block your account. There is an assumption of good faith on Wikipedia and the ban is meant to serve as a time for you to contemplate what you have done and reform your ways, it is not a punishment. --PBS (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree, but with a matter like this no one on either side will say they have got anything wrong. Xn4 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the check user team change their opinion, I will lift the ban and apologise for the inconvenience I have caused you, but at the moment I am assuming good faith by the check user team and I like other Wikipedians rely on their impartiality and good judgement. --PBS (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Will the admin who's responsible please see what I say at User talk:Dzw49#Objection to being blocked indefinitely? I am Dzw49 and I'm having to edit this page anonymously to leave a message here. 86.160.26.142 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wish to leave the comment that I am related to Xn4. UmarZ (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please stop editing the archives. If you have an issue with the finding of the case, I suggest you contact the CU. Synergy 23:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I find this truly bizarre. It seems the "case" was created today and "archived" today. why, then, does it have a section for "Comments by accused parties"? If you are saying that that section is not to be edited by the "accused parties", then what on earth is its purpose? Xn4 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

A case page is only useful until the results are found. As you can see from the page history, a contributor in high standing such as yourself attracts a lot of interest. A checkuser returned the results as confirmed, so the case itself was archived, as there was no longer any need for it. Despite this, I can confirm that checkusers are looking into the results, so it's not closed down just yet. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right. It was handled and closed fast, to avoid any kind of drama. Another editor had already started to comment on the case, and the less public, the better I would say. Synergy 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The impact on me seems to be rather slight, but when comments from "accused parties" are not invited, surely it would be better not to provide a header which invites them? Xn4 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had responded to that on my talk, and will explain again here. That section is for while the case is in progress, not for after the case is over. But to double check, Peter asked another CU to review, and that CU has edited the protected archive affirming (or confirming) the case. Best. Synergy 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is not me. I am really very weary of this. Xn4 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply