Voceditenore

“

I don't edit here very often. If it is urgent, it is best to leave a note on my talk page at English Wikipedia.

”

Notes

July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I'm assuming you've popped over from the English Wikipedia, so you're probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay on! Here's a few links to help you adjust:

There's plenty to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that don't exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you'd like to do. Thanks for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need a hand. weltforce (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Osiris's talk page.

Osiris (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary for creating Category:1698 births

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your edit summary says "hope I'm doing this OK". FYI, it looks fine to me! Normally we don't create categories if there are fewer than 3 entries in them, but these chronology categories are an exception. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's the same on English WP, so I figured it was probably OK here too. Thanks for letting me know for sure. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your assistance

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for help with the Smithton socks. I have given you rollback rights, which might make things easier for you to help us too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter. Thanks. It might prove useful in general. If I'm reverting the specific sock we've discussed, I usually prefer to do it manually so I can leave an edit summary documenting who I'm reverting and why. They seem to come back every 10 days or so on multiple Wikipedias. They show no signs of letting up, alas!. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bodo refs

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/vol1-issue5/H0154245.pdf?id=5624

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AWL1pa8TUFYC&pg=PA908&dq=bodo+gods&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj--IWI5vjPAhVhDsAKHXLkBikQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=bodo%20religion&f=false

http://online.assam.gov.in/web/guest/tribes_of_assam#Bodo%20Kachari

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=abNDLZQ6quYC&pg=PA43&dq=bodo++religion+assam&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUu9mv7_jPAhUDIcAKHR4xAo4Q6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=bodo%20%20religion%20assam&f=false

Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Possible sockpuppets

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Voceditenore, I'm the user who last month reported a disruptive block-evading editor using a lot of different IPs from Southern Italy. Since you said that, when he'd reappear, I should let you know, I'm doing it now: 188.11.228.43 is a new IP from Southern Italy editing in the same way as the previous IPs; plus, it's very likely he's also the same person as users 91.185.190.103 and 89.163.225.167, who edited time ago the same page and are currently blocked. You may block and revert him first and then, if you wish, report the case to the ANI. I hope that my report was useful :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Replied on my talk page at the English Wikipedia [6]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've read your reply. All right then :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Voceditenore, I might have found the sockmaster behind all those sockpuppets and IPs. I think he's an Italian user registered from almost 3 years (more or less it's the time the socks started appearing), his edits about Italian IPAs are almost all regarding syntactic gemination and "Z" to "S". He's also been recently involved in quarrels with English users, both for Italian IPAs and for other languages IPAs, and he's already been blocked in 2 projects, in the first for edits about IPAs considered vandalisms and for using other identities, in the other because (as far as I've understood) he was identified by a checkuser as a noted Italian vandal who was blocked several times. Actually I can't say I'm 100% sure it's our man, but most of the evidences seem to indicate this. Just, I'd like him not to know he's still suspected of sockpuppeting until it's proven whether he's involved or he isn't, that's why I haven't told you his name yet, and I wanted to know your opinion about this issue: I don't think a CU request would be useful, because if he hasn't used other identities in the last 90 days (I've already checked the pages that the known vandal had edited in the past, I found no user restoring the vandalisms except, in a few cases, this user) and because CU policies forbid to link users to IPs; but if he's publicly reported he'll become aware of these suspects and he may turn everything against the reporter or move the matter from his identity to his edits, so he could even get away clean, also because en.wikipedia is a separated project from the others where he was blocked... Do you have any suggestions to give me? 198.46.84.16 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply