This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 |
I am very curious why you added the {{ notability}} template, which is the most ridiculous one among the three you added to this article. A simple Google search can do it but you choose to add this template to an article which has been created for more than a year (and the article was not created by me btw). All your edits have been reverted by me. I am not happy with how easy the edits could be reverted, which means how wrong the edits were. Please do you research before you reverting my edits next time. Thank you. Hijk910 ( talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, since you enforced the block of Ki999, I wanted to let you know that the user has continued the content dispute he led at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr on his talk page post-block. Please note that the user has not bothered to make a formal unblock request yet, only further underlining the WP:NOTHERE argument. The user seems to be here to debate above anything else, thus talk page access should be reconsidered imo. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Infinite would work for me-- meow. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I was considering whether and how to file at SPI due to the Dana Parish AfD and Andrew Hollander AfD. I began by reviewing User:AmySEOPro and saw the indef block you made on August 30, 2022. Should I formally file at SPI or is this flock of possible ducks quacking loudly enough for you to maybe review and address without a formal report? Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. Sorry to bother you. But I am notifying you regarding an editor trying to add a source by an extremist author (Xhufi) in the WP:BALKANS, and specifically the article Greek revolt of 1567–1572 even though Wikipedia's WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE clearly states that the editors shouldn't be doing that. extremist sources are not reliable should not be used, but the editor insists in restoring the questionable source even though there is a clear lack of editorial consensus on the Talk page for using this source and the academic scholarly also has dismissed that particular author, Xhufi, for their extremist views. Relevant talk page discussion may be found at: [1]. I tried to explain to the talkpage the Wikipedia's guidelines but the editor is brute-forcing the source into the article without providing evidence about the source's reliability on the talk page, while sources discrediting the questionable author have already been presented on the talk page. Your attention is needed. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. Considering I am the subject of this discussion I would like to leave a comment. Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and he has collaborated multiple times in international publications. We haven't had any RSN which excludes him from being WP:RS and just recently this book which SilentResident wants to remove was cited extensively in an article published in Cambridge University Press [8]. SilentResident wants to remove a source which is used in a Cambridge University Press article as being 'unreliable'. The sources meets the objective criteria of WP:RS and it hasn't been decided in any other dispute resolution discussion that it's not RS, although consensus itself can't override policies. So I really don't understand why SilentResident is still doing this. @ Drmies: could you also look more closely in recent comments SilentResident made towards me? I am getting repeated inappropriate comments from them where they say that they will report me etc: [9] [10] [11] Also, Xhufi is a living academic who is subjected to continuous BLP violations. SilentResident may not agree with what Xhufi writes, but Xhufi meets WP:RS and is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Whether someone agrees with him or not, it is a fact that he is getting cited in highly reliable journals. Therefore, his name cannot be dragged around Wikipedia anonymously and be called a racist and extremist. This behavior is disturbing and has to stop, I have asked from SilentResident repeatedly to at least follow this basic decorum principle but it only keeps getting worse. Nobody should use the privilege of anonymity in Wikipedia to call living academics "racists" with no evidence, this is blatant defamation. Ahmet Q. ( talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather ( talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Orton 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 until the discussion has finished.
Gilded Snail ( talk) 07:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Cyberllamamusic? -- Lambiam 17:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grenish stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aviemore stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Delfour stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Just for reference, Doktoro and any Lurkers who might be interested: I understand that the adjective du règne is "Carolian", from " Carolus", as used in the names of various things associated with King Charles I School, for example. Uncle G ( talk) 11:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
One can of course always rely upon The Guardian to mis-spell things, and others to then follow suit.
In fairness, this spelling from The Grauniad is supported by books written by experts in interior design from outwith the United Kingdom.
Carolean: 1660–1688
But "Carolian" is the spelling, in contrast, that has been used for the past 2 centuries by others, from Black's Guide in the 19th century discussing Ashburnham Place, through the aforementioned school (and other schools) named after various Charleses, to recent academic history books. The Carolian Chapel is also a common translation of the Karolinska Gravkoret at Riddarholmen Church.
Scarcely less interesting, perhaps, are the Carolian relics; Charles the First's watch, his white silk drawers, the blood-spotted shirt which he wore upon the scaffold […]
The object of this paper is to give a stage view of life in London in the time of Charles the Second, as sketched […] It will be readily understood that all the comedies of that period had the Carolian favour; but Etherege possessed the instincts of a gentleman, and touched dangerous matters with a gentle hand.
Carolian England was ripe for plots at any time and during the first three years of the reign there were a huge number.
Much as we know that furniture is dear to your heart, Doktoro, I think that we should go with the spelling used by the schools and the scholars rather than the one used by The Graduian and the antiques dealers.
Uncle G ( talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?????? ( talk • contribs) ?? ????? ????, ??:?? (UTC)
I'm not able to spend any more time right now looking at this user's contributions, but they seem entirely to consist of cluelessly oververbose references to the scholarly output of one person named Malcolm Tozer, and you and your followers have not only better menu selections, but better vocabulary words for such academic phenomena. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies,
I have been trying to follow some ongoing vandalism that is being done to the Farnborough Hall article (and a few associated articles), by Kenyon2005 and by some other new registered accounts and some IP accounts. I noticed that similar editing was done by Kalorama20008 earlier this summer and they were blocked by you after issuing some bizarre legal threats. They eventually got globally locked. I don't believe there is an SPI case yet but I'm thinking that Kalorama20008 has spun off into some milder acting sockpuppets who are continuing this crusade on behalf of some convoluted sense of family history involving this house and other people in their family line. I thought I'd approach you since you had blocked Kalorama20008 and ask if you see anything here before I filed a SPI case.
I have protected this article for 3 months so I think it is safe from vandalism but this conduct has also spilled over to other articles. Thanks for any help you can provide in looking into this matter. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi
I have reverted the removal of the selected bibliography because the citations link via sfn tags to the bibliography making it explicitly clear what book it refers to. Without the selected bibliography, there is no way of telling what book the citation came from. Also, when hovering over the reference to a citation, the cited book is displayed. By moving the entire selected bibliography to another topic means you can not easily determine which book the citation came from.
The bibliography is selected because it only contains translations and 21st century references, no 18th, 19th or 20th century references.
Could you please discuss major modifications to the article on the talk page before making them so you can understand why the Selected bibliography is needed.
Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad ( talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss the addition of templates on the articles talk page before adding them to the Neoplatonism article.
With respect to the questions of:
"The question of This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (September 2022)"
This has already been discussed in "Length of Article'. Please add your response to that discussion there before adding the template.
"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"
That may be said of a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just this one. For example, articles on mathematical, physics, and other topics. The audience that it is of interest to are people interested in neoplatonism. The detail is needed to explain the philosophical and religious system adequately.
Could editors please reasonably and logically discuss these issues on this talk page before addition of templates which seem to be specifically targeting one article as many articles in Wiki could be said to have the same properties. Darylprasad ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
With respect to your comment on addition of the template again:
"no, the templates are as valid as ever"
That comment does not address the comments I have made about the template on the article's talk page. Could you please elaborate.
Regards Daryl Prasad
Why isn't there a template on Presidency of Donald Trump [497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait [574,553 bytes] to name two- for the same reason there are 137,000 articles with no sources at all - Wikipedia is imperfect and has lots of unresolved problems that the community works together to fix, and you can't wish away the existence of these problems by saying " other stuff exists" * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that your wholy appropriate warning here was followed-up with this ("wikipedia [is] a pointless place where people with nothing more important to do pretend they know more than they do.") And this ("All this brilliance being wasted on the comments section on Wikipedia.") And this ("It's hard to assume "good faith" when it is clear they have none.") And this ("I received your uninformed POV"). And this ("I do appreciate all the time you guys spent explaining your, cough, cough, "logic.") And this ("Get a grip, pal.")
I tried to help them here, apparently with no success. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
For a month, tpa revoked, attack on you suppressed for possible doxxing. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, hope you're doing well. An IP user 212.174.38.3 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Alexyflemming, who is still evading their block, see contributions. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 14:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, see these IP edits. I only noticed it because the editor touched Don't Worry Darling, and all of their edits are today and tend to be as well-written out and relatively knowledgeable as the two user accounts. Not to mention the fact that they went from editing older movies to the only new one. Thoughts? I'll make your gin and tonic a double? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw you tagged Draft:Mark Mills, actor-manager for G3 as an obvious hoax. Can you clarify what makes you think it is an obvious hoax? It doesn't jump out and scream hoax to me like some hoaxes do, and I've spent the last way too long (about half an hour) trying to determine if it is a hoax or not. I'm able to verify some details - like that there was an actress active in the right time period named Nellie Boyd (but not that it was a stage name for someone named Helena Tomkins), that there actually is a character named King Multifaker in Little Jack Horner (that name was what I thought was an obvious hoax - but it's real), and a few other things. The draft is totally unsourced though, which is a problem. I considered declining it as not obvious enough to meet the G3 burden, but I'm not convinced it's not a hoax, and I respect your judgement so - - what am I missing? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley 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 until the discussion has finished.
Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hy , hope you are well, can you please protect the Kosovo Serbs page, it has been a subject of this ip vandalism [ [13]] who changed information from the source, source is open access pg 97. [ [14]] with information according to the article, but the ip keeps on replacing 150000 figure with "a number". Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That those same talking heads that discounted Bama's one point win will scream unnecessary run up of the score today. Asking for a friend. Tide rolls 23:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
What the heck is going on with all these articles related to "chandler" being hijacked into articles about a completely unrelated person? Is there something in the water/news lately that I've missed? Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I will apply them. I recognise I've made mistakes such as using the edit reasons for writing long texts. I will improve myself as an Wiki editor and I won't edit again as an unregistered user without this account. Thank you! Navarran94 ( talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I can only foresee more toxic activity by the account above. He has populated Juan Sebastián Elcano with my name and that of another user associating us to a ideological profile. Do walls and noise pay off? Sadly, it looks like it does. Iñaki LL ( talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't feel like dealing with this person any more. Their standard response to disagreement is to revert and call the other editor "retard". [16] [17] [18] [19]. They have been warned about WP:CIVIL. They are insistent that a mere rumor from one line of text from a data leak be included as a confirmed fact. Will go to 3RR then ANI if necessary. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And ( Jauerback, Deepfriedokra) IP is back at a slightly different address with a 3RR violation [20] after being warned yesterday. [21] —DIYeditor ( talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, Jauerback, Ponyo back again with the slurs too [23]. What's the next step here, don't want to keep spamming Drmies with this. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Aggressively renewing DHCP leases now [24]. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I will prepare an ANI I guess to see about a range block? —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Widr blocked /18. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Drmies, the dishonest approach, judgmental and confrontational attitude and level of aggression against veteran editors in Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano and other articles is just untenable, right after you warned seriously the editor in the ANI. I am only seeing textwalls and noise. I let you know, more toxic action was to be expected from the IPs/Navarran94, and it is happening. Dr Jeckyll, brings next Mr Hyde, an attitude you are familiar with, since that is what happened continually with Asilah1981.
A clear case of WP:NOTHERE that sucks all the energy from constructive contributors who work and comment on content, except when talked about and there is no other option but say sth on behaviour. If this edit in the talk page is not disruptive editing and harassment I do not know what it is. I urge for immediate protection and closure of this circus (sorry to put it like this, but that is what it is), making good your warning in the Incident. Iñaki LL ( talk) 06:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Really, I'm not a prude, although I think we handle sex related articles best following the path of least astonishment. An editor, Leesjy2k, seems to be on a mission to do the exact opposite. I reverted one addition that was pretty obvious, on Doggy style, then took a look at his contribs, which all seem to focus on adding the most graphic photos he can find to articles. To me, this seems like a problem, but wanted an outside opinion from you and/or your stalkers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a couple of them. I think it's all way too much. One of the images was a diagram that I'm fine with but the others, no so much. Drmies ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So the user went on to do more, here (reverted by AndyTheGrump, and in Urination, which I just reverted. User talk:Leesjy2k, we are well into disruptive territory here. User:Dennis Brown, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JayBeeEll, User:Dumuzid, User:Johnbod, User:Deepfriedokra, this is really fetishistic editing. I'm wondering if, if the user doesn't respond and if they continue, if we shouldn't get a topic ban, via AN/ANI. Drmies ( talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I think I just set a record for vulva removal: 511 in two edits. Drmies ( talk) 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
From the recent history, looks like a bit of an edit war is underway. Perhaps a bit of page protection? I know English is your subject, but lately it seems biology has been knocking, at least on the Talk page door. Geoff | Who, me? 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thoughts on this, especially "I just hope.." at midnight on the 22/23. Also his last comment. Johnbod ( talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
At the same time, if the editor is having trouble understanding the problem, I fear he will also be confused by the instruction to "take back" his comment, since it's already been deleted by the admins, and he wouldn't necessarily know where or how to say anything further about it, or to whom. Can he even edit in the place where the discussion was/is taking place, or somewhere else he might be expected to find on his own? When you don't have much experience with the administrative process, it can be hard navigating it. I'm not sure he had much opportunity to cool off and talk to anyone about the warnings before he was blocked, or that he knew how to do so. I've never been banned from editing, so I don't know what he can still do, besides appealing the ban—or where he can do it. I'm sure he has less of an idea than I do. Maybe an indefinite ban is a bit much? Not being an admin myself, I could be way off base here. Just thought I might be able to help. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1110828418 and the next edit after: The comment you "fixed" the threading of was actually posted a whole 11 hours prior to the one you made it appear to be replying to! I appreciate the hard work, but please take care not to create any temporal paradoxes—we don't want to unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum, here. ReGuess ( talk) 02:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This user is vandalizing their talk page after being blocked. As the blocking admin, could you revoke their TPA, please? LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 22:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that they should also have their TPA removed. Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
travel and strings sound -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your deep-clean [30] of Ribe. It seems to have been triggered by my application [31] of a {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, but I rarely see such a prompt and thorough response. Good work!
Hope you are keeping well, and not letting too much of your soul get sucked into the dramas of ANIland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
... Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA &c? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
... and Grooverider9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. 16:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The article Lycée Lamartine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found.
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.
BilletsMauves
€500
19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
at least they removed that horrific image of someone being tortured to death. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways and the spillover at [32]? I'm not trying to prejudice you too much into this discussion, but there seems to be too much heat and not enough light, and I fear that one (competent) editor has already been discouraged from contributing. Rs chen 7754 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Dude? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have some time, could you take a look at the promotional edits added by a relatively new user to the article? I've reverted a couple of times and advised the editor that they are too promotional, but although they've for the moment taken it to the article Talk page (at my request), I think another voice would be helpful. Also, you're better at this than I am. I am sometimes overly brutal, meaning I take out everything when possibly I could just remove parts. It isn't helped by the fact that the principal source cited by the user is behind a "7-day free trial", so I can't see it. I might add that the user has infringed copyright before on another article. Even if the user insists on re-adding the material, I'm not going to revert again as it's not worth getting into trouble over an article that, judging from the number of page watchers, very few people care much about. The user thinks I've threatened to block them, no doubt not seeing the distinction between saying "if you persist, you risk being blocked" and "if you persist, I'll block you". If you decide to help, thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
TY for blocking that IP vandal. Phew, they sure were persistent!
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
01:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
On 2 July, you 3 month’d this range after persistent vandalism and edit warring mostly by an indeffed sockmaster. Less than four hours after the block lifted, the behavior resumed (plus a handful of minor edits, including at least one case of obvious vandalism apparently unrelated to the sockmaster). I request consideration for an extension of the block. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It did seem even worse than usual school articles. But I think there is some viable content in what you deleted/rev-del'ed as BLP. One issue is the sexual-relationship situation. That one is cited to adamhorowitzlaw.com (no idea whether that's RS or not) and to people.com (I would think that's generally tabloid-level for BLP). But both of those cite mainstream media (local news sources). It's reasonable to consider whether it's DUE and whether those sources are reliable (or whether the ones they cite are), but given it's cited tracelable to presumed-reliable news publishers, I don't think it's "rev-del as BLP". On the other hand, the pushing/scratching situation appears to have not led to any substantive outcome, since the person is back in position at the school, so I think it should be excluded from the article. But again, given it was a situation covered in mainstream media (and the content appears to be worded with proper indication of the level of certainly, I don't think it's a rev-del BLP issue, just UNDUE/NOTNEWS. DMacks ( talk) 03:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Email blocked again. Thanks though! Doug Weller talk 10:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I have a WikiData and MusicBrainz page for this Wikipedia page article draft Whitenoise I need help properly Linking it into authority control. I also would like you to proof read the career section on the Wikipedia page article. I also wanted to know is there a reason the info is displayed under the info box usually some info is displayed above like the main source. Would like help for my page and I would like to know how many more sources do you think I need to get this published and approved. Toledohiphop ( talk) 03:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Whitenoise
Wiki data page is here https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q1919004
MusicBrainz Page is here
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/21b023ce-16d3-4df2-aaa6-1533a384b4ef
Toledohiphop ( talk) 03:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The article Winky Hicks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO
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.
LimonesMI (
talk)
00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. Hope all is well. Today I emailed Jerome Loving a question about whether Andrew Carnegie was present at Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln as I polish up the article for FAC, and he responded with the text I had researched and put in the article (attributed to Wikipedia, but still). Does this mean I have finally made it? Will royalty checks start appearing in the mail? Just an interesting little anecdote that made my day... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a totally random Wikipedian. I just found my way here through one of the big RC edits (flagged as vandalism) and saw that you found all those people are from a certain course. Or college? Yet the course isn't registered with Wiki Ed somehow and here you are trying to clean up the mess.
I just think the whole thing is kinda nuts and also think its funny how you somehow managed to uncover all of what you did haha. This should go in the next edition of The Signpost! — That Coptic Guy ( talk) 03:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I know you often edit school articles so I'm hoping you can help.
In 2020, Stratford Central Secondary School converted to an intermediate school, and all its students were merged into Stratford Northwestern Secondary School (which already had its own students). I've made edits on both articles to support this.
After the merge, Stratford Northwestern Secondary School was renamed Stratford District Secondary School. Should the Stratford Northwestern Secondary School article be renamed, or should a new article be created for the "new" merged school?
Should both Stratford Central Secondary School and Stratford Northwestern Secondary School now state that they are "closed"? In other words, be written in the past tense?
Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, would you please revdel this edit? Egsan Bacon ( talk) 01:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, have a short break and enjoy your drink. Thanks for your kindness. |
Mhhossein talk 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've left a comment at your request on SRG. Many thanks — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 17:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
About vandalism where a huge list of words was added, e.g. this. Do you recall what the resolution was? Seems like this should be edit filterable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I know you just love the jpop articles with blood type, personal colors, and official! fan! nicknames! so here I am. I've been keeping an eye on a new WP:RADAR user Satsukihuffingtoon40, since they popped up on an article I was cleaning up after a series of socks/IPs got blocked. They've been mostly making unconstructive infobox edits to kpop/jpop/model/actor BLPs, while also working in their sandbox to make an article on a 16-year old TV actor not look exactly like the Fandom article they obviously started with. As you can see from their talk page, they're completely unresponsive to communication, whether personalized or templated. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (if wrong) or modified (if partly correct), many by me (with explanations), some by others. Lately they've taken to adding unreliable sources for hair color in infoboxes [38], adding fan nicknames to infoboxes [39] (told you!), and now re-adding correctly removed article text so that it no longer matches what the cited source says [40]. Since this is a classic WP:RADAR case, is it possible to apply a partial block from article space until they respond on their talk page? It might just be that they are new and don't know they have one. If you don't want to deal with it, no worries, a lot worse things are happening in the world. Like AKB Team 8 going on hiatus, OMG! Thanks. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Nine months in and still ranting. After edits such as [41] and [42] I think talk page access needs to be removed. Meters ( talk) 04:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, it might be time for protection now. Or at least a block of this user, who had already been reverted by an admin in September and has now vandalised past a level 4 warning. Currently dealing with endless WP:WALLOFTEXT non-policy arguments by SPAs over at Talk:Libertarian Association of Massachusetts too... they are relentless. I try to explain that it is is just about sources and I have been on both "sides" of their civil war (as the Daily Beast calls it) based on the sources, but they of course are not interested in anything short of "winning" and will post endlessly. Tartan357 ( talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking this IP. Appreciated. Sarrail ( talk) 01:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, nice to meet you. You left a comment on my talk page concerning my recent edits. Thank you for giving me awareness on the policy concerning racial articles. You also mentioned the Prince of Wales edit, which I also thank you for pointing out. I don't remember making that edit, but I may have not seen or I may have been confused by the cited lead there. You are correct in saying collaborative projects, such as Wikipedia, are bettered serve by discussing these type of things so that there is improved facilitation of discussion and understanding between users. What can I further do to ameliorate this situation that will assuage your fears going forward? Auror Andrachome ( talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding [46], I really feel like discussion of my previous signature contrast is important, because honestly upon reflection, I agree with you. I wanted to start a thread to make sure your concerns are addressed. I work with designers regularly, and issues surrounding color / design almost always require some back and forth. Anyway, please let me know if my new signature addresses your concerns. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 19:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed over on Talk:Kiwi Farms you blocked ByteOr. It seems to me that Brennieor is possibly a WP:DUCK, as they were created on the same date, share similar userboxes and username (B*or). Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 01:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You blocked Sir Dougie Parella for disruptive editing a while ago. Sirdougieparrella98 is probably a sock, given the username and editing behaviour. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you should reconsider your assessment. Based on the previous SPI, BreezewoodPA's current argument, the claim by BreezewoodPA to having 'alts at the ready' this is pretty obvious to me what's happening here. I've been suspicious of this account for months now and having them admit to using alts to evade bans was pretty much confirmation. Hyderabad22 ( talk) 00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
...possibly straying into BLP libel? Revdel maybe? Johnbod ( talk) 01:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies,
Some more oversight needed here. I'm not sure if autoconfirmed protection is enough as the latest vandal waited 4 days before they vandalized. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnvr4 ( talk) 02:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This article came to my attention because it was incorrectly speedy tagged. I wish it hadn't. The article itself could use a lot of work, but my main difficulty is a new editor who has been making problematic edits to the article. I stopped battling with the user as I didn't want to come close to violating 3RR. I was hoping another user, who originally challenged the user as well, would assist, but they seem to have dropped out. I left the user two warnings, one for 3RR and one for a COI, but that hasn't stopped them. I just followed up the COI warning with a more personalized warning. Anyway, Dwivedi is a professor, and you are responsible for the maintenance of all articles about academics on Wikipedia. So, if you're around this weekend and feel like looking at the article, that would be lovely. As an aside, you pinged me to the Talk page of a sock you blocked a day or two ago (everything blurs), and I didn't get your reference to hounding.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Johnvr4 ( talk) 03:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Disregard. Johnvr4 ( talk) 05:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Kindly do not remove the informations again what you have done numerous times on the page of MTV Splitsvilla (season 13). The informations currently removed are relatable to the show & they are much informative. Ems 27 03 ( talk) 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jasper Tomlins ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mailballs 9900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are both, based on edit summaries and targetting articles I have edited, Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA and email access? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi hope you're well, I started this on Dutch Wikipedia and somebody has a problem with it and wants it reviewed. I don't know if my translation is good or if there are any issues, but it makes me less likely to want to create articles on there. There's nothing wrong with it as a start, given that I couldn't find an abundance of bio info to write sections. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please block User: Ems 27 03 from editing Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) also as he/she doing persistent disruptive edits and has been warned several times on talk page or edit summaries or articles talk page. Thanks. Imsaneikigai ( talk) 16:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Here are some of his disruptive edits: 1) [47] 2) [48]
Several warning by me: 1) [49] 2) [50] 3) [51]
So what you suggest shall i post this on his talk page too? Imsaneikigai ( talk) 16:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
On 12 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Freetown, Alabama, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Freetown, Alabama, was founded by free and formerly enslaved African Americans in Alabama, whose church, built in 1929, burned down in 2022? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Freetown, Alabama. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Freetown, Alabama), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 5,773 views (481.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.Good afternoon sir, I was wondering if you would comment in this discussion because there are three users who are friends that are literally attempting to deprecate a source that is recommended as reliable on the library websites of Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Yale, Princeton etc /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood ( talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
... On 207.157.0.0/17 ... after reviewing over a school-years' worth of contribs on that range, which is registered to the Alabama Supercomputer Network (with a very unhelpful redirect that I nominated for deletion), I've concluded that they're absolutely not a net positive here. There do seem to be some occasional good eggs in there so I left account creation on just in case. You (or anyone else who reads this) might also want to put Danville, Alabama on your watchlist ... I rarely have to revert two years of edits to an article but that's what I ended up doing there. I trust you're going well. Graham 87 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Drmies! It me, Allyriana000 again. I have a problem with the user Castilloaivee. This user makes erroneous mistakes always, especially against beauty queens from the Philippines and Thailand. For example, this user frequently replaces Catriona Gray with Donnalyn Bartolome at the pages of Miss Universe 2018, Miss Universe 2019, Gazini Ganados, Philippines at the Big Four international beauty pageants, etc. And Pia Wurtzbach, Miss Universe 2015 with Ariadna Gutierrez as Miss Universe 2015 in Binibining Pilipinas 2015, Miss Universe 2015 etc. These erroneous edits are considered as an act of vandalism and these types of edits go back to as early as 2018.
I also have a problem with De Boni 2007. This user, when editing, always creates complex sentences, and sentences with wrong grammar. I do not know if it is an act of vandalism or not. However, I wish you could give a keen eye with these users. Thank you and godspeed! Allyriana000 ( talk) 09:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 |
I am very curious why you added the {{ notability}} template, which is the most ridiculous one among the three you added to this article. A simple Google search can do it but you choose to add this template to an article which has been created for more than a year (and the article was not created by me btw). All your edits have been reverted by me. I am not happy with how easy the edits could be reverted, which means how wrong the edits were. Please do you research before you reverting my edits next time. Thank you. Hijk910 ( talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, since you enforced the block of Ki999, I wanted to let you know that the user has continued the content dispute he led at Talk:Andrew Tate#Andrew Tate has active, official accounts on Rumble and Gettr on his talk page post-block. Please note that the user has not bothered to make a formal unblock request yet, only further underlining the WP:NOTHERE argument. The user seems to be here to debate above anything else, thus talk page access should be reconsidered imo. Throast {{ping}} me! ( talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Infinite would work for me-- meow. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I was considering whether and how to file at SPI due to the Dana Parish AfD and Andrew Hollander AfD. I began by reviewing User:AmySEOPro and saw the indef block you made on August 30, 2022. Should I formally file at SPI or is this flock of possible ducks quacking loudly enough for you to maybe review and address without a formal report? Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. Sorry to bother you. But I am notifying you regarding an editor trying to add a source by an extremist author (Xhufi) in the WP:BALKANS, and specifically the article Greek revolt of 1567–1572 even though Wikipedia's WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE clearly states that the editors shouldn't be doing that. extremist sources are not reliable should not be used, but the editor insists in restoring the questionable source even though there is a clear lack of editorial consensus on the Talk page for using this source and the academic scholarly also has dismissed that particular author, Xhufi, for their extremist views. Relevant talk page discussion may be found at: [1]. I tried to explain to the talkpage the Wikipedia's guidelines but the editor is brute-forcing the source into the article without providing evidence about the source's reliability on the talk page, while sources discrediting the questionable author have already been presented on the talk page. Your attention is needed. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. Considering I am the subject of this discussion I would like to leave a comment. Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and he has collaborated multiple times in international publications. We haven't had any RSN which excludes him from being WP:RS and just recently this book which SilentResident wants to remove was cited extensively in an article published in Cambridge University Press [8]. SilentResident wants to remove a source which is used in a Cambridge University Press article as being 'unreliable'. The sources meets the objective criteria of WP:RS and it hasn't been decided in any other dispute resolution discussion that it's not RS, although consensus itself can't override policies. So I really don't understand why SilentResident is still doing this. @ Drmies: could you also look more closely in recent comments SilentResident made towards me? I am getting repeated inappropriate comments from them where they say that they will report me etc: [9] [10] [11] Also, Xhufi is a living academic who is subjected to continuous BLP violations. SilentResident may not agree with what Xhufi writes, but Xhufi meets WP:RS and is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Whether someone agrees with him or not, it is a fact that he is getting cited in highly reliable journals. Therefore, his name cannot be dragged around Wikipedia anonymously and be called a racist and extremist. This behavior is disturbing and has to stop, I have asked from SilentResident repeatedly to at least follow this basic decorum principle but it only keeps getting worse. Nobody should use the privilege of anonymity in Wikipedia to call living academics "racists" with no evidence, this is blatant defamation. Ahmet Q. ( talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather ( talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Orton 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 until the discussion has finished.
Gilded Snail ( talk) 07:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Cyberllamamusic? -- Lambiam 17:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Grenish stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 22:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aviemore stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Delfour stone circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 01:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Just for reference, Doktoro and any Lurkers who might be interested: I understand that the adjective du règne is "Carolian", from " Carolus", as used in the names of various things associated with King Charles I School, for example. Uncle G ( talk) 11:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
One can of course always rely upon The Guardian to mis-spell things, and others to then follow suit.
In fairness, this spelling from The Grauniad is supported by books written by experts in interior design from outwith the United Kingdom.
Carolean: 1660–1688
But "Carolian" is the spelling, in contrast, that has been used for the past 2 centuries by others, from Black's Guide in the 19th century discussing Ashburnham Place, through the aforementioned school (and other schools) named after various Charleses, to recent academic history books. The Carolian Chapel is also a common translation of the Karolinska Gravkoret at Riddarholmen Church.
Scarcely less interesting, perhaps, are the Carolian relics; Charles the First's watch, his white silk drawers, the blood-spotted shirt which he wore upon the scaffold […]
The object of this paper is to give a stage view of life in London in the time of Charles the Second, as sketched […] It will be readily understood that all the comedies of that period had the Carolian favour; but Etherege possessed the instincts of a gentleman, and touched dangerous matters with a gentle hand.
Carolian England was ripe for plots at any time and during the first three years of the reign there were a huge number.
Much as we know that furniture is dear to your heart, Doktoro, I think that we should go with the spelling used by the schools and the scholars rather than the one used by The Graduian and the antiques dealers.
Uncle G ( talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey sorry to bother again but I am having a bit of a issue. I am attempting to post the Yonkers Police page again which I revamped but it is not letting me stating "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist." Is there anyway you can help me out with posting the page again? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?????? ( talk • contribs) ?? ????? ????, ??:?? (UTC)
I'm not able to spend any more time right now looking at this user's contributions, but they seem entirely to consist of cluelessly oververbose references to the scholarly output of one person named Malcolm Tozer, and you and your followers have not only better menu selections, but better vocabulary words for such academic phenomena. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies,
I have been trying to follow some ongoing vandalism that is being done to the Farnborough Hall article (and a few associated articles), by Kenyon2005 and by some other new registered accounts and some IP accounts. I noticed that similar editing was done by Kalorama20008 earlier this summer and they were blocked by you after issuing some bizarre legal threats. They eventually got globally locked. I don't believe there is an SPI case yet but I'm thinking that Kalorama20008 has spun off into some milder acting sockpuppets who are continuing this crusade on behalf of some convoluted sense of family history involving this house and other people in their family line. I thought I'd approach you since you had blocked Kalorama20008 and ask if you see anything here before I filed a SPI case.
I have protected this article for 3 months so I think it is safe from vandalism but this conduct has also spilled over to other articles. Thanks for any help you can provide in looking into this matter. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi
I have reverted the removal of the selected bibliography because the citations link via sfn tags to the bibliography making it explicitly clear what book it refers to. Without the selected bibliography, there is no way of telling what book the citation came from. Also, when hovering over the reference to a citation, the cited book is displayed. By moving the entire selected bibliography to another topic means you can not easily determine which book the citation came from.
The bibliography is selected because it only contains translations and 21st century references, no 18th, 19th or 20th century references.
Could you please discuss major modifications to the article on the talk page before making them so you can understand why the Selected bibliography is needed.
Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad ( talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Please discuss the addition of templates on the articles talk page before adding them to the Neoplatonism article.
With respect to the questions of:
"The question of This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (September 2022)"
This has already been discussed in "Length of Article'. Please add your response to that discussion there before adding the template.
"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"
That may be said of a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just this one. For example, articles on mathematical, physics, and other topics. The audience that it is of interest to are people interested in neoplatonism. The detail is needed to explain the philosophical and religious system adequately.
Could editors please reasonably and logically discuss these issues on this talk page before addition of templates which seem to be specifically targeting one article as many articles in Wiki could be said to have the same properties. Darylprasad ( talk) 23:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
With respect to your comment on addition of the template again:
"no, the templates are as valid as ever"
That comment does not address the comments I have made about the template on the article's talk page. Could you please elaborate.
Regards Daryl Prasad
Why isn't there a template on Presidency of Donald Trump [497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait [574,553 bytes] to name two- for the same reason there are 137,000 articles with no sources at all - Wikipedia is imperfect and has lots of unresolved problems that the community works together to fix, and you can't wish away the existence of these problems by saying " other stuff exists" * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that your wholy appropriate warning here was followed-up with this ("wikipedia [is] a pointless place where people with nothing more important to do pretend they know more than they do.") And this ("All this brilliance being wasted on the comments section on Wikipedia.") And this ("It's hard to assume "good faith" when it is clear they have none.") And this ("I received your uninformed POV"). And this ("I do appreciate all the time you guys spent explaining your, cough, cough, "logic.") And this ("Get a grip, pal.")
I tried to help them here, apparently with no success. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
For a month, tpa revoked, attack on you suppressed for possible doxxing. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, hope you're doing well. An IP user 212.174.38.3 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Alexyflemming, who is still evading their block, see contributions. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 14:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunshine773, see these IP edits. I only noticed it because the editor touched Don't Worry Darling, and all of their edits are today and tend to be as well-written out and relatively knowledgeable as the two user accounts. Not to mention the fact that they went from editing older movies to the only new one. Thoughts? I'll make your gin and tonic a double? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw you tagged Draft:Mark Mills, actor-manager for G3 as an obvious hoax. Can you clarify what makes you think it is an obvious hoax? It doesn't jump out and scream hoax to me like some hoaxes do, and I've spent the last way too long (about half an hour) trying to determine if it is a hoax or not. I'm able to verify some details - like that there was an actress active in the right time period named Nellie Boyd (but not that it was a stage name for someone named Helena Tomkins), that there actually is a character named King Multifaker in Little Jack Horner (that name was what I thought was an obvious hoax - but it's real), and a few other things. The draft is totally unsourced though, which is a problem. I considered declining it as not obvious enough to meet the G3 burden, but I'm not convinced it's not a hoax, and I respect your judgement so - - what am I missing? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley 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 until the discussion has finished.
Tom Reedy ( talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hy , hope you are well, can you please protect the Kosovo Serbs page, it has been a subject of this ip vandalism [ [13]] who changed information from the source, source is open access pg 97. [ [14]] with information according to the article, but the ip keeps on replacing 150000 figure with "a number". Thank you. Theonewithreason ( talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That those same talking heads that discounted Bama's one point win will scream unnecessary run up of the score today. Asking for a friend. Tide rolls 23:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
What the heck is going on with all these articles related to "chandler" being hijacked into articles about a completely unrelated person? Is there something in the water/news lately that I've missed? Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I will apply them. I recognise I've made mistakes such as using the edit reasons for writing long texts. I will improve myself as an Wiki editor and I won't edit again as an unregistered user without this account. Thank you! Navarran94 ( talk) 17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I can only foresee more toxic activity by the account above. He has populated Juan Sebastián Elcano with my name and that of another user associating us to a ideological profile. Do walls and noise pay off? Sadly, it looks like it does. Iñaki LL ( talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't feel like dealing with this person any more. Their standard response to disagreement is to revert and call the other editor "retard". [16] [17] [18] [19]. They have been warned about WP:CIVIL. They are insistent that a mere rumor from one line of text from a data leak be included as a confirmed fact. Will go to 3RR then ANI if necessary. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And ( Jauerback, Deepfriedokra) IP is back at a slightly different address with a 3RR violation [20] after being warned yesterday. [21] —DIYeditor ( talk) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, Jauerback, Ponyo back again with the slurs too [23]. What's the next step here, don't want to keep spamming Drmies with this. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Aggressively renewing DHCP leases now [24]. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I will prepare an ANI I guess to see about a range block? —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Widr blocked /18. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Drmies, the dishonest approach, judgmental and confrontational attitude and level of aggression against veteran editors in Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano and other articles is just untenable, right after you warned seriously the editor in the ANI. I am only seeing textwalls and noise. I let you know, more toxic action was to be expected from the IPs/Navarran94, and it is happening. Dr Jeckyll, brings next Mr Hyde, an attitude you are familiar with, since that is what happened continually with Asilah1981.
A clear case of WP:NOTHERE that sucks all the energy from constructive contributors who work and comment on content, except when talked about and there is no other option but say sth on behaviour. If this edit in the talk page is not disruptive editing and harassment I do not know what it is. I urge for immediate protection and closure of this circus (sorry to put it like this, but that is what it is), making good your warning in the Incident. Iñaki LL ( talk) 06:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Really, I'm not a prude, although I think we handle sex related articles best following the path of least astonishment. An editor, Leesjy2k, seems to be on a mission to do the exact opposite. I reverted one addition that was pretty obvious, on Doggy style, then took a look at his contribs, which all seem to focus on adding the most graphic photos he can find to articles. To me, this seems like a problem, but wanted an outside opinion from you and/or your stalkers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a couple of them. I think it's all way too much. One of the images was a diagram that I'm fine with but the others, no so much. Drmies ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So the user went on to do more, here (reverted by AndyTheGrump, and in Urination, which I just reverted. User talk:Leesjy2k, we are well into disruptive territory here. User:Dennis Brown, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JayBeeEll, User:Dumuzid, User:Johnbod, User:Deepfriedokra, this is really fetishistic editing. I'm wondering if, if the user doesn't respond and if they continue, if we shouldn't get a topic ban, via AN/ANI. Drmies ( talk) 19:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I think I just set a record for vulva removal: 511 in two edits. Drmies ( talk) 20:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
From the recent history, looks like a bit of an edit war is underway. Perhaps a bit of page protection? I know English is your subject, but lately it seems biology has been knocking, at least on the Talk page door. Geoff | Who, me? 21:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thoughts on this, especially "I just hope.." at midnight on the 22/23. Also his last comment. Johnbod ( talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
At the same time, if the editor is having trouble understanding the problem, I fear he will also be confused by the instruction to "take back" his comment, since it's already been deleted by the admins, and he wouldn't necessarily know where or how to say anything further about it, or to whom. Can he even edit in the place where the discussion was/is taking place, or somewhere else he might be expected to find on his own? When you don't have much experience with the administrative process, it can be hard navigating it. I'm not sure he had much opportunity to cool off and talk to anyone about the warnings before he was blocked, or that he knew how to do so. I've never been banned from editing, so I don't know what he can still do, besides appealing the ban—or where he can do it. I'm sure he has less of an idea than I do. Maybe an indefinite ban is a bit much? Not being an admin myself, I could be way off base here. Just thought I might be able to help. P Aculeius ( talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1110828418 and the next edit after: The comment you "fixed" the threading of was actually posted a whole 11 hours prior to the one you made it appear to be replying to! I appreciate the hard work, but please take care not to create any temporal paradoxes—we don't want to unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum, here. ReGuess ( talk) 02:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This user is vandalizing their talk page after being blocked. As the blocking admin, could you revoke their TPA, please? LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 22:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that they should also have their TPA removed. Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 12:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
travel and strings sound -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your deep-clean [30] of Ribe. It seems to have been triggered by my application [31] of a {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} banner, but I rarely see such a prompt and thorough response. Good work!
Hope you are keeping well, and not letting too much of your soul get sucked into the dramas of ANIland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
... Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA &c? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
... and Grooverider9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. 16:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The article Lycée Lamartine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found.
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.
BilletsMauves
€500
19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
at least they removed that horrific image of someone being tortured to death. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways and the spillover at [32]? I'm not trying to prejudice you too much into this discussion, but there seems to be too much heat and not enough light, and I fear that one (competent) editor has already been discouraged from contributing. Rs chen 7754 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Dude? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have some time, could you take a look at the promotional edits added by a relatively new user to the article? I've reverted a couple of times and advised the editor that they are too promotional, but although they've for the moment taken it to the article Talk page (at my request), I think another voice would be helpful. Also, you're better at this than I am. I am sometimes overly brutal, meaning I take out everything when possibly I could just remove parts. It isn't helped by the fact that the principal source cited by the user is behind a "7-day free trial", so I can't see it. I might add that the user has infringed copyright before on another article. Even if the user insists on re-adding the material, I'm not going to revert again as it's not worth getting into trouble over an article that, judging from the number of page watchers, very few people care much about. The user thinks I've threatened to block them, no doubt not seeing the distinction between saying "if you persist, you risk being blocked" and "if you persist, I'll block you". If you decide to help, thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
TY for blocking that IP vandal. Phew, they sure were persistent!
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡
01:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
On 2 July, you 3 month’d this range after persistent vandalism and edit warring mostly by an indeffed sockmaster. Less than four hours after the block lifted, the behavior resumed (plus a handful of minor edits, including at least one case of obvious vandalism apparently unrelated to the sockmaster). I request consideration for an extension of the block. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 05:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It did seem even worse than usual school articles. But I think there is some viable content in what you deleted/rev-del'ed as BLP. One issue is the sexual-relationship situation. That one is cited to adamhorowitzlaw.com (no idea whether that's RS or not) and to people.com (I would think that's generally tabloid-level for BLP). But both of those cite mainstream media (local news sources). It's reasonable to consider whether it's DUE and whether those sources are reliable (or whether the ones they cite are), but given it's cited tracelable to presumed-reliable news publishers, I don't think it's "rev-del as BLP". On the other hand, the pushing/scratching situation appears to have not led to any substantive outcome, since the person is back in position at the school, so I think it should be excluded from the article. But again, given it was a situation covered in mainstream media (and the content appears to be worded with proper indication of the level of certainly, I don't think it's a rev-del BLP issue, just UNDUE/NOTNEWS. DMacks ( talk) 03:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Email blocked again. Thanks though! Doug Weller talk 10:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I have a WikiData and MusicBrainz page for this Wikipedia page article draft Whitenoise I need help properly Linking it into authority control. I also would like you to proof read the career section on the Wikipedia page article. I also wanted to know is there a reason the info is displayed under the info box usually some info is displayed above like the main source. Would like help for my page and I would like to know how many more sources do you think I need to get this published and approved. Toledohiphop ( talk) 03:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Whitenoise
Wiki data page is here https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q1919004
MusicBrainz Page is here
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/21b023ce-16d3-4df2-aaa6-1533a384b4ef
Toledohiphop ( talk) 03:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The article Winky Hicks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO
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.
LimonesMI (
talk)
00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. Hope all is well. Today I emailed Jerome Loving a question about whether Andrew Carnegie was present at Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln as I polish up the article for FAC, and he responded with the text I had researched and put in the article (attributed to Wikipedia, but still). Does this mean I have finally made it? Will royalty checks start appearing in the mail? Just an interesting little anecdote that made my day... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a totally random Wikipedian. I just found my way here through one of the big RC edits (flagged as vandalism) and saw that you found all those people are from a certain course. Or college? Yet the course isn't registered with Wiki Ed somehow and here you are trying to clean up the mess.
I just think the whole thing is kinda nuts and also think its funny how you somehow managed to uncover all of what you did haha. This should go in the next edition of The Signpost! — That Coptic Guy ( talk) 03:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I know you often edit school articles so I'm hoping you can help.
In 2020, Stratford Central Secondary School converted to an intermediate school, and all its students were merged into Stratford Northwestern Secondary School (which already had its own students). I've made edits on both articles to support this.
After the merge, Stratford Northwestern Secondary School was renamed Stratford District Secondary School. Should the Stratford Northwestern Secondary School article be renamed, or should a new article be created for the "new" merged school?
Should both Stratford Central Secondary School and Stratford Northwestern Secondary School now state that they are "closed"? In other words, be written in the past tense?
Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, would you please revdel this edit? Egsan Bacon ( talk) 01:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, have a short break and enjoy your drink. Thanks for your kindness. |
Mhhossein talk 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've left a comment at your request on SRG. Many thanks — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 17:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
About vandalism where a huge list of words was added, e.g. this. Do you recall what the resolution was? Seems like this should be edit filterable. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I know you just love the jpop articles with blood type, personal colors, and official! fan! nicknames! so here I am. I've been keeping an eye on a new WP:RADAR user Satsukihuffingtoon40, since they popped up on an article I was cleaning up after a series of socks/IPs got blocked. They've been mostly making unconstructive infobox edits to kpop/jpop/model/actor BLPs, while also working in their sandbox to make an article on a 16-year old TV actor not look exactly like the Fandom article they obviously started with. As you can see from their talk page, they're completely unresponsive to communication, whether personalized or templated. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (if wrong) or modified (if partly correct), many by me (with explanations), some by others. Lately they've taken to adding unreliable sources for hair color in infoboxes [38], adding fan nicknames to infoboxes [39] (told you!), and now re-adding correctly removed article text so that it no longer matches what the cited source says [40]. Since this is a classic WP:RADAR case, is it possible to apply a partial block from article space until they respond on their talk page? It might just be that they are new and don't know they have one. If you don't want to deal with it, no worries, a lot worse things are happening in the world. Like AKB Team 8 going on hiatus, OMG! Thanks. Indignant Flamingo ( talk) 00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Nine months in and still ranting. After edits such as [41] and [42] I think talk page access needs to be removed. Meters ( talk) 04:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, it might be time for protection now. Or at least a block of this user, who had already been reverted by an admin in September and has now vandalised past a level 4 warning. Currently dealing with endless WP:WALLOFTEXT non-policy arguments by SPAs over at Talk:Libertarian Association of Massachusetts too... they are relentless. I try to explain that it is is just about sources and I have been on both "sides" of their civil war (as the Daily Beast calls it) based on the sources, but they of course are not interested in anything short of "winning" and will post endlessly. Tartan357 ( talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking this IP. Appreciated. Sarrail ( talk) 01:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, nice to meet you. You left a comment on my talk page concerning my recent edits. Thank you for giving me awareness on the policy concerning racial articles. You also mentioned the Prince of Wales edit, which I also thank you for pointing out. I don't remember making that edit, but I may have not seen or I may have been confused by the cited lead there. You are correct in saying collaborative projects, such as Wikipedia, are bettered serve by discussing these type of things so that there is improved facilitation of discussion and understanding between users. What can I further do to ameliorate this situation that will assuage your fears going forward? Auror Andrachome ( talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding [46], I really feel like discussion of my previous signature contrast is important, because honestly upon reflection, I agree with you. I wanted to start a thread to make sure your concerns are addressed. I work with designers regularly, and issues surrounding color / design almost always require some back and forth. Anyway, please let me know if my new signature addresses your concerns. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 19:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed over on Talk:Kiwi Farms you blocked ByteOr. It seems to me that Brennieor is possibly a WP:DUCK, as they were created on the same date, share similar userboxes and username (B*or). Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 01:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You blocked Sir Dougie Parella for disruptive editing a while ago. Sirdougieparrella98 is probably a sock, given the username and editing behaviour. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you should reconsider your assessment. Based on the previous SPI, BreezewoodPA's current argument, the claim by BreezewoodPA to having 'alts at the ready' this is pretty obvious to me what's happening here. I've been suspicious of this account for months now and having them admit to using alts to evade bans was pretty much confirmation. Hyderabad22 ( talk) 00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
...possibly straying into BLP libel? Revdel maybe? Johnbod ( talk) 01:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies,
Some more oversight needed here. I'm not sure if autoconfirmed protection is enough as the latest vandal waited 4 days before they vandalized. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnvr4 ( talk) 02:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This article came to my attention because it was incorrectly speedy tagged. I wish it hadn't. The article itself could use a lot of work, but my main difficulty is a new editor who has been making problematic edits to the article. I stopped battling with the user as I didn't want to come close to violating 3RR. I was hoping another user, who originally challenged the user as well, would assist, but they seem to have dropped out. I left the user two warnings, one for 3RR and one for a COI, but that hasn't stopped them. I just followed up the COI warning with a more personalized warning. Anyway, Dwivedi is a professor, and you are responsible for the maintenance of all articles about academics on Wikipedia. So, if you're around this weekend and feel like looking at the article, that would be lovely. As an aside, you pinged me to the Talk page of a sock you blocked a day or two ago (everything blurs), and I didn't get your reference to hounding.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Johnvr4 ( talk) 03:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Disregard. Johnvr4 ( talk) 05:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Kindly do not remove the informations again what you have done numerous times on the page of MTV Splitsvilla (season 13). The informations currently removed are relatable to the show & they are much informative. Ems 27 03 ( talk) 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Jasper Tomlins ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mailballs 9900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are both, based on edit summaries and targetting articles I have edited, Evlekis, so would you please remove TPA and email access? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi hope you're well, I started this on Dutch Wikipedia and somebody has a problem with it and wants it reviewed. I don't know if my translation is good or if there are any issues, but it makes me less likely to want to create articles on there. There's nothing wrong with it as a start, given that I couldn't find an abundance of bio info to write sections. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please block User: Ems 27 03 from editing Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) also as he/she doing persistent disruptive edits and has been warned several times on talk page or edit summaries or articles talk page. Thanks. Imsaneikigai ( talk) 16:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Here are some of his disruptive edits: 1) [47] 2) [48]
Several warning by me: 1) [49] 2) [50] 3) [51]
So what you suggest shall i post this on his talk page too? Imsaneikigai ( talk) 16:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
On 12 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Freetown, Alabama, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Freetown, Alabama, was founded by free and formerly enslaved African Americans in Alabama, whose church, built in 1929, burned down in 2022? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Freetown, Alabama. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Freetown, Alabama), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 5,773 views (481.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.Good afternoon sir, I was wondering if you would comment in this discussion because there are three users who are friends that are literally attempting to deprecate a source that is recommended as reliable on the library websites of Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Yale, Princeton etc /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood ( talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
... On 207.157.0.0/17 ... after reviewing over a school-years' worth of contribs on that range, which is registered to the Alabama Supercomputer Network (with a very unhelpful redirect that I nominated for deletion), I've concluded that they're absolutely not a net positive here. There do seem to be some occasional good eggs in there so I left account creation on just in case. You (or anyone else who reads this) might also want to put Danville, Alabama on your watchlist ... I rarely have to revert two years of edits to an article but that's what I ended up doing there. I trust you're going well. Graham 87 14:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Drmies! It me, Allyriana000 again. I have a problem with the user Castilloaivee. This user makes erroneous mistakes always, especially against beauty queens from the Philippines and Thailand. For example, this user frequently replaces Catriona Gray with Donnalyn Bartolome at the pages of Miss Universe 2018, Miss Universe 2019, Gazini Ganados, Philippines at the Big Four international beauty pageants, etc. And Pia Wurtzbach, Miss Universe 2015 with Ariadna Gutierrez as Miss Universe 2015 in Binibining Pilipinas 2015, Miss Universe 2015 etc. These erroneous edits are considered as an act of vandalism and these types of edits go back to as early as 2018.
I also have a problem with De Boni 2007. This user, when editing, always creates complex sentences, and sentences with wrong grammar. I do not know if it is an act of vandalism or not. However, I wish you could give a keen eye with these users. Thank you and godspeed! Allyriana000 ( talk) 09:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)