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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
As I haven't been able to find the page for disputes with wiktionary admins TheGroninger ( talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
From your edit history I guess that was you? Thank you :) 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thread about you, nothing serious, you can't hardly miss it... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You blocked that user on 8 May 2021. Now they are back as two new socks:
User:SangeetaMehtaTeacher
User:Sangeeta666666
Copying online English grammar and yoga content from copyrighted sources, posting to sandbox, user page, talk page, even after reversion, posting Blogspot URL for "magazine", etc. Annoyingly, they disrupt WP while seeming to waste their own time.--
Quisqualis (
talk)
17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as an FYI as you were previously involved with the user User:Gexajutyr. I've just blocked them indefinitely for blatant violations of their topic ban and unblock conditions. Their very first edit, and most since, were violations of their no altering or "fixing" redirects and not broken links. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Could you answer my question about
User:ClueBot III#General template format: Which is right? Which is wrong? (1) |archiveprefix=User talk:User name/Archives/
(2) |archiveprefix=User talk/User_name/Archives/
There are slash / and underscore _ issues.
Sawol (
talk)
14:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
You can borrow my copy of "The Administrator's Compendium of All Knowledge in the Known Universe" if you've misplaced yours, Beeblebrox. You'll have to pick it up though, the shipping is killer due to the weight. Because of all that knowledge.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, there was an actual (minor) problem here, but it was not being explained clearly. It's been resolved amicably now. Cheers. — The Earwig ( talk) 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Caesar salad was protected in 2013 for persistent vandalism. In the past year, it looks like the vandalism has died down to manageable levels under recent changes patrol and normal counter-vandalism (17 reverts in the past year). I am requesting to remove PCR from the article. Thanks in advance! (please ping on reply) Sennecaster ( What now?) 05:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The amendment request you filed regarding the case Privatemusings has been closed and archived. You may view a permalink of the amendment request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Beeblebrox! Interstellarity ( talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst: User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{ User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) |
Happy first day of summer, Beeblebrox!! Interstellarity ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It's surprising to see a hotly contested RfC closed early, even if comments have slowed down, but meh. I don't have any reason to think the outcome would change. My main reason for leaving this message is to ask if you would consider rewording the closing statements? The questions were to assess where consensus is on the subject, not to propose specific changes to the guideline. They're based on ways people have interpreted and attempted to enforce our guidelines in practice rather than on the way the guideline is written, which has been interpreted and enforced in wildly varying ways. Since the guideline seems out of step with practice, the idea is to just ask the question, putting the guidelines aside, and then ensure the guidelines align with the consensus on the question.
So while it's often true that "no consensus to implement" is functionally equivalent to "consensus against implementation", in this case they are different. When I look at question 1, for example, I have a hard time seeing anything other than consensus against rather than just a lack of consensus in favor. Consensus against gives us something we can use when trying to clarify the guideline without mandating any particular change. Question 2 is harder, of course, but if you could read into the answers to extract anything there is consensus for or consensus against (assuming there is such consensus for anything) rather than assess it like a specific proposed change, that would be helpful.
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
but eternal truth, it seems: still freaking out, still denying reality, revoking talk page, as usual
. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
——
Serial
16:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for banning John Paos from the Palmer Report article. I have a question, and forgive me if this is not the correct place for it. If John Paos been banned from editing the article, why are his biased additions and deletions to the article still intact? Shouldn't all of his alterations be removed or undone? In addition, if John Paos was correctly banned for his bias and inappropriate behavior, why has Dr. Swag Lord not also been banned? At this point Dr. Swag Lord is treating this article as his personal playpen, with dozens and dozens of successive edits – and much of what he's tweaking came from John Paos to begin with. They appear to be working as a team. Dr. Swag Lord's bullying and threats against EraserHead1 on the Talk page were completely inappropriate.
At the least, the Palmer Report article should be reverted to what it was a few weeks ago, before John Paos deleted all the positive and neutral language, and replaced it with 100% negative language. The article previously had mentions of Palmer from major news outlets like USA Today and Washington Post that Paos simply deleted; those should be brought back. Or, seeing how the article has been perhaps irretrievably defaced by a gang of editors whose leader has now been banned from the page, perhaps the article should be marked for deletion. Thank you for your consideration.
In any case, there is significant cleanup work that needs to be done to the article to correct the damage that John Paos did. Every established editor who has stepped in to try to clean up the mess has been bullied and chased away by Dr. Swag Lord, who at this point essentially has sole control over the page. Seeing as how Dr. Swag Lord's behavior toward other editors has been wildly inappropriate, blocking him would allow established editors who have been chased away by him to step back in and try to return the page to something fitting Wikipedia guidelines. As of now the page is a disaster, and it will remain that way as long as Dr. Swag Lord is allowed to continue treating it as his personal property. He's got to go. Thank you.
I am reliably informed that it's bad form for a candidate to use the bully pulpit of candidacy to discuss issues during the process. I don't know if that is true; I do know I made the barest of protests of form. Your question allowed me to state my views coarsely. I took advantage. Thanks for your boldness; I appreciated your courtesy. BusterD ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Lengthy but explains things in detail Celestina007 ( talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take a look at Mashup (web application hybrid) when you have a quick minute? I added template to it and I already removed the offending material (copyvio), but I don't think I got the ranges right and I've already edited it once so I don't want to keep going back and changing it over and over. This is the first time I've used the revdel template. Thanks, Johnnie Bob ( talk) 20:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The first thing that I just wanted to let you know is that I wasn't aware that I had done anything that was against the Wikipedia rules. First you said told me not to correct typo. The editor's typo whose typo that I corrected has told that they don't mind if I correct their typo and has even thanked me for doing it at times. Second you did that I had stealth canvassing and I don't see how since I let them know on their talk page and that is not done in a secret manner. Also you told me that they would have seen the AFD, well no, not everyone sees the AFDs. There are AFDs that I have missed that I wish that I had voted at, but didn't know about. Also I read that you are ALLOWED to let people know about AFDs, so I don't see how that would be even canvassing neither. I really didn't think that I had done anything wrong. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm having an issue with the ownership an editor has taken of the article Nicki Minaj. I've noticed many others have pointed out in his talk page that this is a repeated behavior. Asking for an experienced, third-party opinion, for a less-biased lead section of the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
ygm... — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Long time no contact. Sorry to message you out of the blue on a somewhat weighty topic, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on an AN draft?
Request IBAN repeal
|
---|
Back in 2015, 2016, and early 2017 John Carter ( talk · contribs) repeatedly hounded me, following me to multiple articles and undermining my edits. I requested that an interaction ban be put in place to prevent this from happening again, and my request was granted. [1] John Carter then continued to hound me for the next several months (indeed, a fairly sizable portion of his relatively infrequent edits throughout 2017 and 2018 were IBAN violations), and he was blocked three times (the first one was undone by the same admin, the last one being indefinite and (given that it has been more than three years with no appeal, and some off-wiki stuff that I won't link to -- some readers may remember what I'm talking about) likely permanent. Because an IBAN with indef-blocked editor does not impede my editing under normal circumstances, I never outright requested anything be done about it. But over the last three and a half years the fact that I "have been subject to X number of IBANs" has been used as evidence that I must be at fault in whatever dispute is ongoing at the moment, and I have been unable to explain the background of my IBAN with John Carter (which, when this started happening, was actually my only active IBAN if I recall correctly, although it has since been used as a basis for others) because that would involve discussing the hounding of me by a now-blocked editor with whom I am still technically IBANned. (I have requested email contact with several such editors to explain the circumstances; some accepted, and when I explained things off-wiki they backed down, while others shot me down; I won't name names because I'd rather avoid drahma.) The most recent instance was last night, but it has happened on average at least once every two or three months. I would rather not have this keep happening, especially when the IBAN was put in place at my request to protect myself from one-way hounding and the editor in question has been effectively banned from the site for well over three years. So that's why I'm here. I'd be happy to field any questions (the original IBAN was imposed following a long ANI thread, and I can appreciate that, under the circumstances -- the thread was filed by John Carter about me, and a lot of the sympathy I got from the community at the time was less about "hounding" than about personal attacks -- my statement that it was originally put in place at my request for hounding may cause some confusion), but if, given John Carter's apparent disinterest in returning to Wikipedia, this seems clear-cut enough, then I'll leave it to the community. |
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You alluded to a forthcoming Arbcom statement here. Where would such a statement be posted? The noticeboard? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I wrote to ArbCOM but unfortunately for me I somehow managed to send it wrongly only to BDD, but they have been gracious enough and have promised to share it with the rest of you all. So basically a lot of off-wiki solicitations and canvassing I haven’t been privy to due to the ban of Twitter in Nigeria have been on-going, I’ve heard talks of off wiki massive canvassing but I haven’t seen for myself thus In order to see things for myself, I’ve managed to temporarily bypass the Twitter ban and of a truth it’s really alarming what I’m seeing. I’ve sent the first batch to ArbCOM, ehh to BDD actually (silly me). In the little time given to me to temporarily bypass the Twitter censorship, I would optimize it thoroughly, i would send a second batch to ArbCOM tomorrow. I am doing this so I can substantiate what I said to you in the personal private email I sent to you in relation to a particular organization I made mention of. On upwork it’s a whole other story for another day. What I see there is equally alarming. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
so you remember my request to be confirmed early and it got denied well i did 9 more edits most of the pages were given to me from the task center so i did them and now i'm autoconfirmed Savitarp45 ( talk) 03:16 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jacona ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
(Just a watcher, with no involvement anywhere whatsoever) User talk:Fæ#Blocking admin Review, IMO, has reached a point where you deserve notification (this is it). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
May I have a WikiBreak block ending on 1-1-2022. I'm hoping by that point, I'll just sort of forget about logging in. Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 ( talk) 13:22, 8 September 2021 (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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
As I haven't been able to find the page for disputes with wiktionary admins TheGroninger ( talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
From your edit history I guess that was you? Thank you :) 92.24.246.11 ( talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thread about you, nothing serious, you can't hardly miss it... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.-- BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
You blocked that user on 8 May 2021. Now they are back as two new socks:
User:SangeetaMehtaTeacher
User:Sangeeta666666
Copying online English grammar and yoga content from copyrighted sources, posting to sandbox, user page, talk page, even after reversion, posting Blogspot URL for "magazine", etc. Annoyingly, they disrupt WP while seeming to waste their own time.--
Quisqualis (
talk)
17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as an FYI as you were previously involved with the user User:Gexajutyr. I've just blocked them indefinitely for blatant violations of their topic ban and unblock conditions. Their very first edit, and most since, were violations of their no altering or "fixing" redirects and not broken links. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Could you answer my question about
User:ClueBot III#General template format: Which is right? Which is wrong? (1) |archiveprefix=User talk:User name/Archives/
(2) |archiveprefix=User talk/User_name/Archives/
There are slash / and underscore _ issues.
Sawol (
talk)
14:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
You can borrow my copy of "The Administrator's Compendium of All Knowledge in the Known Universe" if you've misplaced yours, Beeblebrox. You'll have to pick it up though, the shipping is killer due to the weight. Because of all that knowledge.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, there was an actual (minor) problem here, but it was not being explained clearly. It's been resolved amicably now. Cheers. — The Earwig ( talk) 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Caesar salad was protected in 2013 for persistent vandalism. In the past year, it looks like the vandalism has died down to manageable levels under recent changes patrol and normal counter-vandalism (17 reverts in the past year). I am requesting to remove PCR from the article. Thanks in advance! (please ping on reply) Sennecaster ( What now?) 05:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The amendment request you filed regarding the case Privatemusings has been closed and archived. You may view a permalink of the amendment request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sunshine! | ||
Hello Beeblebrox! Interstellarity ( talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst: User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{ User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) |
Happy first day of summer, Beeblebrox!! Interstellarity ( talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It's surprising to see a hotly contested RfC closed early, even if comments have slowed down, but meh. I don't have any reason to think the outcome would change. My main reason for leaving this message is to ask if you would consider rewording the closing statements? The questions were to assess where consensus is on the subject, not to propose specific changes to the guideline. They're based on ways people have interpreted and attempted to enforce our guidelines in practice rather than on the way the guideline is written, which has been interpreted and enforced in wildly varying ways. Since the guideline seems out of step with practice, the idea is to just ask the question, putting the guidelines aside, and then ensure the guidelines align with the consensus on the question.
So while it's often true that "no consensus to implement" is functionally equivalent to "consensus against implementation", in this case they are different. When I look at question 1, for example, I have a hard time seeing anything other than consensus against rather than just a lack of consensus in favor. Consensus against gives us something we can use when trying to clarify the guideline without mandating any particular change. Question 2 is harder, of course, but if you could read into the answers to extract anything there is consensus for or consensus against (assuming there is such consensus for anything) rather than assess it like a specific proposed change, that would be helpful.
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
but eternal truth, it seems: still freaking out, still denying reality, revoking talk page, as usual
. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
——
Serial
16:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for banning John Paos from the Palmer Report article. I have a question, and forgive me if this is not the correct place for it. If John Paos been banned from editing the article, why are his biased additions and deletions to the article still intact? Shouldn't all of his alterations be removed or undone? In addition, if John Paos was correctly banned for his bias and inappropriate behavior, why has Dr. Swag Lord not also been banned? At this point Dr. Swag Lord is treating this article as his personal playpen, with dozens and dozens of successive edits – and much of what he's tweaking came from John Paos to begin with. They appear to be working as a team. Dr. Swag Lord's bullying and threats against EraserHead1 on the Talk page were completely inappropriate.
At the least, the Palmer Report article should be reverted to what it was a few weeks ago, before John Paos deleted all the positive and neutral language, and replaced it with 100% negative language. The article previously had mentions of Palmer from major news outlets like USA Today and Washington Post that Paos simply deleted; those should be brought back. Or, seeing how the article has been perhaps irretrievably defaced by a gang of editors whose leader has now been banned from the page, perhaps the article should be marked for deletion. Thank you for your consideration.
In any case, there is significant cleanup work that needs to be done to the article to correct the damage that John Paos did. Every established editor who has stepped in to try to clean up the mess has been bullied and chased away by Dr. Swag Lord, who at this point essentially has sole control over the page. Seeing as how Dr. Swag Lord's behavior toward other editors has been wildly inappropriate, blocking him would allow established editors who have been chased away by him to step back in and try to return the page to something fitting Wikipedia guidelines. As of now the page is a disaster, and it will remain that way as long as Dr. Swag Lord is allowed to continue treating it as his personal property. He's got to go. Thank you.
I am reliably informed that it's bad form for a candidate to use the bully pulpit of candidacy to discuss issues during the process. I don't know if that is true; I do know I made the barest of protests of form. Your question allowed me to state my views coarsely. I took advantage. Thanks for your boldness; I appreciated your courtesy. BusterD ( talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Lengthy but explains things in detail Celestina007 ( talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take a look at Mashup (web application hybrid) when you have a quick minute? I added template to it and I already removed the offending material (copyvio), but I don't think I got the ranges right and I've already edited it once so I don't want to keep going back and changing it over and over. This is the first time I've used the revdel template. Thanks, Johnnie Bob ( talk) 20:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The first thing that I just wanted to let you know is that I wasn't aware that I had done anything that was against the Wikipedia rules. First you said told me not to correct typo. The editor's typo whose typo that I corrected has told that they don't mind if I correct their typo and has even thanked me for doing it at times. Second you did that I had stealth canvassing and I don't see how since I let them know on their talk page and that is not done in a secret manner. Also you told me that they would have seen the AFD, well no, not everyone sees the AFDs. There are AFDs that I have missed that I wish that I had voted at, but didn't know about. Also I read that you are ALLOWED to let people know about AFDs, so I don't see how that would be even canvassing neither. I really didn't think that I had done anything wrong. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm having an issue with the ownership an editor has taken of the article Nicki Minaj. I've noticed many others have pointed out in his talk page that this is a repeated behavior. Asking for an experienced, third-party opinion, for a less-biased lead section of the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
ygm... — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Long time no contact. Sorry to message you out of the blue on a somewhat weighty topic, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on an AN draft?
Request IBAN repeal
|
---|
Back in 2015, 2016, and early 2017 John Carter ( talk · contribs) repeatedly hounded me, following me to multiple articles and undermining my edits. I requested that an interaction ban be put in place to prevent this from happening again, and my request was granted. [1] John Carter then continued to hound me for the next several months (indeed, a fairly sizable portion of his relatively infrequent edits throughout 2017 and 2018 were IBAN violations), and he was blocked three times (the first one was undone by the same admin, the last one being indefinite and (given that it has been more than three years with no appeal, and some off-wiki stuff that I won't link to -- some readers may remember what I'm talking about) likely permanent. Because an IBAN with indef-blocked editor does not impede my editing under normal circumstances, I never outright requested anything be done about it. But over the last three and a half years the fact that I "have been subject to X number of IBANs" has been used as evidence that I must be at fault in whatever dispute is ongoing at the moment, and I have been unable to explain the background of my IBAN with John Carter (which, when this started happening, was actually my only active IBAN if I recall correctly, although it has since been used as a basis for others) because that would involve discussing the hounding of me by a now-blocked editor with whom I am still technically IBANned. (I have requested email contact with several such editors to explain the circumstances; some accepted, and when I explained things off-wiki they backed down, while others shot me down; I won't name names because I'd rather avoid drahma.) The most recent instance was last night, but it has happened on average at least once every two or three months. I would rather not have this keep happening, especially when the IBAN was put in place at my request to protect myself from one-way hounding and the editor in question has been effectively banned from the site for well over three years. So that's why I'm here. I'd be happy to field any questions (the original IBAN was imposed following a long ANI thread, and I can appreciate that, under the circumstances -- the thread was filed by John Carter about me, and a lot of the sympathy I got from the community at the time was less about "hounding" than about personal attacks -- my statement that it was originally put in place at my request for hounding may cause some confusion), but if, given John Carter's apparent disinterest in returning to Wikipedia, this seems clear-cut enough, then I'll leave it to the community. |
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
You alluded to a forthcoming Arbcom statement here. Where would such a statement be posted? The noticeboard? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I wrote to ArbCOM but unfortunately for me I somehow managed to send it wrongly only to BDD, but they have been gracious enough and have promised to share it with the rest of you all. So basically a lot of off-wiki solicitations and canvassing I haven’t been privy to due to the ban of Twitter in Nigeria have been on-going, I’ve heard talks of off wiki massive canvassing but I haven’t seen for myself thus In order to see things for myself, I’ve managed to temporarily bypass the Twitter ban and of a truth it’s really alarming what I’m seeing. I’ve sent the first batch to ArbCOM, ehh to BDD actually (silly me). In the little time given to me to temporarily bypass the Twitter censorship, I would optimize it thoroughly, i would send a second batch to ArbCOM tomorrow. I am doing this so I can substantiate what I said to you in the personal private email I sent to you in relation to a particular organization I made mention of. On upwork it’s a whole other story for another day. What I see there is equally alarming. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
so you remember my request to be confirmed early and it got denied well i did 9 more edits most of the pages were given to me from the task center so i did them and now i'm autoconfirmed Savitarp45 ( talk) 03:16 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jacona ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
(Just a watcher, with no involvement anywhere whatsoever) User talk:Fæ#Blocking admin Review, IMO, has reached a point where you deserve notification (this is it). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
May I have a WikiBreak block ending on 1-1-2022. I'm hoping by that point, I'll just sort of forget about logging in. Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 ( talk) 13:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)