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 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Hi Drmies! While patrolling recent changes, I ran into an editor ( Arrely11331) who kept changing the domain of sources on a bunch of articles to be 'gaylesbiantimes'. After looking at the history of one of the articles, I just happened to see that there was another account with a similar username that was blocked. And, as you can probably predict, this account is a sock puppet. The reason I'm messaging you about this is because you were the user who blocked the account that I happened to spot ( Ars3nal311). Looking at the block summary you added, it looks like this user was trying to pull wool over your eyes by saying that what he's doing is legitimate. I was wondering if you happen to have any more information about this user, or if there are other accounts that you've blocked. The edits being made, while small, stick out like a sore thumb. I'm just not sure of what he's trying to accomplish... Advertising? Trolling? What also has me concerned is the fact that some of the edits by the account I blocked were modifying the URL of the source, which was already set to be 'gaylesbiantimes', and on articles of subjects where it's quite unlikely that this domain is going to cover as a source. I'm wondering if there's ongoing disruption that goes deeper and further back... ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish engravers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Mies,
Tympanus, whom he just blocked, appears to be using an IP to comment now [1].-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah ha! Now I understand. Of course I know that meaning of "weed", but the word has never been actively used in that meaning in any circle I have been a member of, so it does not automatically spring to mind when I see the word, as it evidently did to yours when you saw that user name. As for 420, that is totally new to me. Evidently I am seriously out of touch. All part of getting older, I suppose. JBW ( talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Bristol...brutalist architecture...Portishead...Massive Attack...Neanderthals and Iron Age hill forts...just fucking beep me up already, will you? Drmies ( talk) 01:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this might warrant some CU magic dust, I suspect there's been years of logged out editing and since they edited in the last month, data won't be too stale. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
[2] Doug Weller talk 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be of interest to you, but I stumbled upon it and removed a lot of stuff only about secession, mainly other groups and that mainly self-sourced, probably more cleanup to be done. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doctor. Regarding your recent comment. The most complete list of what was done (IP blocks and article semiprotections) is now at Talk:The Doors#Selecting the articles to protect. No objection if you want to relocate the information from that thread and put it in a subpage of Talk:The Doors.
For a while, I was using underlines to show which articles were semied. When I get some time, I might try to update that section with your recent admin actions so we know where the remaining gaps are. Some Doors articles can be left open as honeypots. No point in opening an SPI except it would be a central place to stash the information. Or we could open up an WP:LTA report but I have heard that is a serious step. I don't know if a long-term case of nuisance vandalism would be enough of a reason for an LTA. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. I'm sorry for adding those Crynchyroll and Fandompost citations. I don't want to add the citations from fansites and commercial websites anymore. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies,
I would appreciate your input in a dispute. Would you have some time and energy for that?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hellom Drmies ! Which is reliable or unreliable ? The most reliable is Anime News Network. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not reliable because they were fansites. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, thank you for your message about my edits to the Draft page on Susan Magsamen. I wonder if you might be more specific about which parts of the draft are promotional? I recently attended a talk by Magsamen and I thought she would be a good person about whom to create my first page. That said, I am new to editing Wikipedia (this is the first page I've ever tried to create), and like any beginner I'm sure I will make mistakes. If you could be more specific that would be enormously helpful. Thank you! User:ECDonaldson ( talk 10:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, thank you so much for this feedback! It is extremely helpful and opens my eyes in terms of what is actually appropriate to include. I will set about editing it down immediately; I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "notable," on the one hand, and overestimated the credibility of some of my sources (think a review, and articles, would be okay to include). Would it be okay to trouble you to take another look once I'm done paring it down? Thank you again, User:ECDonaldson ( talk 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies and The Lord of Math, thank you both for your messages. As someone who is just learning, I try not to be scared off by things...but it also helps that I didn't actually realize that a permanent "warning" had been added to my draft. Nor did I realize, in fact, that anyone could see my draft as I was creating it. I'd say this was mostly a pleasant surprise, since I'm sure my draft would have run into even bigger issues (or just been flatly rejected) if I had submitted it without any feedback. That said, where is the room for learning? If my new draft page has been branded with a "severe warning" and it's not even off the ground, how can I recover? I have certainly made some massive edits...but are they moving in the right direction? Thanks again for your guidance, User:ECDonaldson ( talk 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me what to do. I guess I just saw one of them, and it legitimately looked like "one of the other vandals down the street" - I guess I'll have to increment my scales. Thanks a lot. tLoM (The Lord of Math) ( Message; contribs) ( Report false positive) 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Can I edit the Robot Girls Z article ? I want to add only one reference from Anime News Network only. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not allowed then. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion at Talk:Source-code editor#Questionning current "No addition" policy that's taken some disturbing turns. If and only if you have some extra time could you take a look at this? I hoping it will soon sort itself out regardless, but I'm far from any familiar ground here. Plus I'd like to know what I may have done to trigger the... distrubation. I understand if you have more pressing issues. Thanks in either case. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Goos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Goos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Abraham Goos), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning it up. I have thousands of school articles on my watch list and sometimes I lose track of threads I should be following up on. Meters ( talk) 22:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Hey, I noticed you blocked Special:Contributions/2409:4070:2000::/36. Now that we have partial blocks, I was thinking that this could actually be a useful test of the feature. If we convert this range block to be a partial block on just Wikipedia: namespace, my understanding is that this would prevent any IP user on that range from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, etc. But they could still edit regular articles, like, say, List of Supernatural characters. What do you think? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies ! Can you remove these tons of spamlinks such as Crunchyroll, Fandompost and Amazon.com on Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT as you did on Dragon Ball (TV series)? Because it considered as the spamlinks then.
Hi there matey, all well? Sure bloody hope so!
Situation getting out of hand, and then some. User (with at least two accounts and an IP) keeps reverting the match fixing scandal section. No news have emerged of the ban being lifted (it could have, as another one of the banned players, André Almeida, is back playing pro football in my country), but anyway such ban was a fact (all over the news https://www.google.com/search?q=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&oq=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&aqs=chrome..69i57.5688j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Could be a open-and-shut case of WP:COI, his agent, a friend, Mr. Veloso himself? I talked with :@ Mattythewhite: regarding the subject, he asked that i ask (oh, the redundance of it all!) to have page protected (auto-confirmed users only would prevent more vandalism, am i correct in this assumption?), Matty says he would do it himself but he is directly involved so he can not.
User seems to be from the Faroe Islands, so chances are they know jack shit of what happened in Portugal (but my money is on COI, like i said previously). Kind regards, from Portugal (they reverted me/us again, i'm close to breaking the 3RR so i better stop) -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Not telling you how to do your work of course, but does not seem to be the case. Utter nuisance switched to the IP and reverted again! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Now you got me thinking about it too... All hail the mighty Bruno Varela, this year he'll surely earn an Eredivisie medal!! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
On 6 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Witch Hunt (Rush song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the difference between live versions of Rush's " Witch Hunt" were seen as an instance of "translation" à la Walter Benjamin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Witch Hunt (Rush song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Witch Hunt (Rush song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at what I rev/deleted. But the whole article seems mainly written by members not bothering with sources. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked and haven't a clue. It doesn't help that the user has been mostly making edits that say little about their interests. I have let the rest of my family know about our long-lost cousin. They are thrilled! -- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If this worked for you, would you mind doing the same thing with my username? Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 02:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to deal with Recent deaths ( Mirella Freni, Volker Spengler), I don't want to deal also with edit-warring over an article title, Die Wolke. It was the writers wish - obviously - to have a harmless-sounding title, and not Fall-Out. Can we follow? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day! | |
---|---|
Alte Liebe I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses |
also Lucille Eichengreen, please watch -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thank you - my little contrib to the day is Alte Liebe, - the other one started but not gotten far, + there's real life, and real death. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean the R-word is officially more offensive than the F-word on Wikipedia? :l Dark Knight 2149 02:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/OldandGood2876 On one hand, it's a reliable source, but on the other hand, it feels like using Wikipedia as soapbox. Your thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
To be fair to these companies, these are the “effective” rates and were calculated using publicly available filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The tax expenses reflected in those documents do not necessarily match those in the private tax filings, and the analysis does not include state and local taxes.
If companies aren't paying enough taxes, isn't it the government's fault for enabling and encouraging it? OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you definitely caught at least one LTA in there. Somebody from Southeastern Michigan has been adding fictitious material to animation-related pages for a long time. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 02:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The other day you or someone else edited Alan Warrens page for having to many photos and said that I shouldn't do that. However Carl Van Rechtens page is almost packed full of his photos but not Alan Warrens. What the hell? Either keep my edits or change Carl Van Rechtens.
Dynamite16 ( talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No not at all, but it is that one page is packed to the rafters of photographs and another isn't. I got told off for something which I thought was unfair and that I was doing something reasonable, but then I found this other page of Carl Van Rechtens that was packed to the rafters so I thought that shouldn't that also be like only 6-7 photographs as well because of the (in my opinion silly but I am now prepared to go by) rules? Dynamite16 ( talk) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I not quickly change it back just to get a copy of this so called crazy gallery and have it as pdf and afterwards put it back to its current format? Dynamite16 ( talk) 18:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah Dr.K sent me a thank you message for reverting it to its current format. All is fine now many thanks Dynamite16 ( talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the constructive feed back - Got it! I'll clean up the content and I will switch the URL's as soon as I learn to do it! Yikes! I'm determined to get it right! Thanks for your help! Harpmom39 ( talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
Hey Drmies , I noticed your edit to my draft Karlyn Percil and I'd like reach out to get further recommendations. I've made some edits to sources, which seemed to be the primary issue. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
and - which is better - still actively precious, or is it preciously active? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You wanted my attention, you got it. I'll make this simple. I feel that film plots should be as detailed as possible, in regards to what goes on. I have seen plenty of other film pages that have plot far beyond the 400-700 limit and no one has had any problems with them. Nashwalker ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I come and go and spend such extended times away that when I come back for a bit I'm always a bit hesitant in case something major has changed. I appreciated knowing I wasn't as far out of line as I first thought.
Wish me luck; I'm about to go try and deal with a basically non existent reception and box office section and I almost never play with ref tags. It'll be fun! Millahnna ( talk) 03:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
+sysop
so you should be able to do anything PCR would do. Maybe
xaosflux could lend some insight into the technical issues you are having.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hi there, You recently deleted tables from a page I was updating on the basis that I had no citations. The page was for Woodgrove High School, under the band program page. I am a band student at Woodgrove, and all of that information was from personal experience. I would like to have the tables back, so I would like to know how you believe I should cite that information. Thanks in advance. Andrewcstewart21 ( talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies, shalom. I noticed in your recent edit on the "Vita" Disambiguation page here that you deleted the entry for Josephus' work entitled "Vita," a term often used to describe the book Life of Flavius Josephus. In my humble opinion, many scholars and academics know Josephus' fourth published work purely by that title, as you can see here, and here, and here, and here, and in the summary written in this article here, and if you scroll down in this Encyclopædia Britannica article here, under the heading "Josephus as Historian," you'll find the paragraph that reads: "Appended to the Antiquities was a Vita (Life), which is less an autobiography than an apology for Josephus’ conduct in Galilee during the revolt" (End Quote). Often, citations taken from the book are simply listed under the title "Vita," as you can see in the first paragraph of the next web-page here. The title is also used in the abstract here, among other places. In consideration of which things I say that, perhaps, it may have been premature to delete this important entry from the Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get more feedback on this issue from other contributing editors. Davidbena ( talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
What we really do need is a more clear signpost to indicate that it is a common word for such a document, and what we really need is a list of vitae. I mean, we have f*ing lists of everything--here's something that is actually important. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This is simply how the word vita is used. There is nothing specific about its usage in relation to Josephus. Nothing. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Drmies:I kindly ask of you to take a second look at the Disambiguation page Vita. You will see there many entries, each having a different connotation for the same word. Since Josephus is a well-known personage and his works are used and named by a myriad of scholars, shouldn't we at least make reference to this important work, Vita (Josephus), which was composed by him? I, personally, see nothing wrong nor amiss about having it added to the Disambiguation page, but, then again, my own personal judgment may be wrong. We may wish to ask ourselves what wrong will it do by adding it to the list? Since I do not rely upon my own judgment (which is often in error), would you agree that we get a larger consensus on this issue, such as by posting a WP:RfC? Shalom. Davidbena ( talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Nice work. Cassianto Talk 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See the caption for the picture that was added to User:Ava-Mae Holman. Figured I'd let you know about it... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I'd like to bring to your attention a BLP violation at Talk:Julian Assange. SPECIFICO has referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices": diff. The fact that SPECIFICO is referring to GRU agents is clear from the context of this discussion: [6]. The word "accomplice" implies both that Assange is a criminal, and that he conspired with GRU agents. This is a very serious BLP violation. I have asked SPECIFICO to strike these comments ( diff), but SPECIFICO has not done so. Please take the necessary actions to make sure than this serious BLP issue is addressed. Also pinging Bishonen, who might be able to help. Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest that
Guy should not be the person summarizing the discussion at
Talk:Julian Assange. At
Talk:Julian Assange, Guy has been quite uncharacteristically complaining about "Assange cultists"
and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more"
(referring to publicity surrounding a letter in support of Assange by 130 prominent figures from German politics and media, including one of Germany's most famous journalists and a recent Vice Chancellor / head of one of Germany's two major parties). In response to questions by a number of editors, Guy has not offered any substantiation for these wild claims about cultists, MRAs, etc. I have serious concerns about Guy's impartiality here, and if such comments themselves do no violate
WP:BLP or
WP:NPA, it is only because they are so diffuse that one could plausibly deny that they're directed at any one person (e.g., the former Vice Chancellor of Germany, the journalists for Germany's largest papers who wrote articles about the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, or the many editors at
Talk:Julian Assange arguing for inclusion of the appeal).
@ Newyorkbrad: Is it acceptable for editors to be opine on talk pages that living people are part of a criminal conspiracy? This is what you seem to be arguing - that unless an action is clearly legally actionable, it is no violation of WP:BLP. I thought that WP:BLP was supposed to be applied very cautiously. Asserting that a living person criminally conspired with intelligence agents (which is not an established fact in Assange's case, and I'm very surprised that Guy is making that unfounded assertion here) is surely a very serious attack on a living person. Without very good sourcing, it cannot be made.
As for whether the statement is admissible because it is an opinion: any comment left by an editor could be construed as being an opinion. If editors' opinions cannot, by definition, violate
WP:BLP, then BLP is a hollow document on talk pages. But to the contrary,
WP:BLP states, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages."
If editors can make unsubstantiated, defamatory claims about living persons under the guise of opinion, why even apply BLP to talk pages? -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@
Newyorkbrad: I'd also like to point out that
WP:BLP is not limited to legally actionable statements.
WP:BLP mentions the laws of the United States, but it talks about much more than just what the law requires: material about living persons, including on talk pages, "requires a high degree of sensitivity"
and must adhere to
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR and other core policies. I think it's obvious that calling a living person a criminal conspirator working together with intelligence services is a violation of these tenets, whether or not they would legally be considered opinion. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A demitasse for you | ||
Presented to Half-Admin Drmies |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to Drmies for his fearless defense of Wikipedia in the face of specious onslaughts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
For sorting out that BLP issue last night. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, There is an editor who is asking me to move a draft to the main space (convert it to an article). He said he can't do it because he is not an extended confirmed editor. Should I do that? Here is one of the drafts Draft:Fkhrettin Koca. Can I do that? Thanks.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, why do you think the grime comment is irrelevent? Not sure if you are from the UK or understand the culture but it's an important revelation in the fact it reveals an insight into the dark humour behind some of the lyrics. Please can you tell me why this is a problem for you?
Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC) It's at the bottom for you now :) That particular collaboration was one of the biggest tunes by some of the oldest artists, a pivotal moment in both their careers. The interview is directly from the perspective of the producer of that record. UKF was a music blog first, the record label stuff came later and is not their main line of business. That particular track was definitely not on their label so don't see how it can be biased. Maybe you could give me a list of reputable sources where you can quote underground music artists from? I don't think these are the kinds of artists you will see in the mainstream press as its underground music. The whole concept of grime has strong underground roots. Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
Good summary :) The interesting point being is that isn't something thats been said publically by a key artist in this way before. It's a heavily overlooked facet of the whole genre. Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 08:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
Hi Doc. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Normally, I wouldn't bother you, but this concerns a revert based on a past RfC we had commented on. After this revert, I opened a talkpage discussion because I realised that, before my revert, the concerts of the band appeared twice in the article: once in the prose, and then at the table. Apart from the old argument of notability for these concerts, having them appear twice in the article seems excessive, at least to me. Dr. K. 23:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there man, all well?
Let's work together to improve (yet) another article in this encyclopedia, shall we? Can you please add the translation to the source #12 in Adrián Dalmau (from Voetbal International)? I have a slight hunch as to what it may mean, but i don't want to take any chances, do accommodate by all means :)
Thanks in advance, keep it up -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you believe in 13 years (and counting) i never once did that? -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies - I've been looking at the three users, and one IP's residual edits - Any chance of removing User:1008rajpuranalas/sandbox, User talk:Shanaleshwar and Draft:Shree Shanaleshwar Swayambhu Mahadev before these get copy-pasted again as a mass of "new" articles? - Arjayay ( talk) 18:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask you a favour? Ealdgyth, Agricolae, and I have been trying to get a new user, Berserk Kerberos, to pay attention instead of edit warring. You can see all the relevant conversations on their talk page and by looking at the history of articles they've edited. I don't usually deal with things requiring administrator involvement; can you take a look and let me know what you think a good next step would be? ANI seems awfully harsh for some who does seem to want to help, though they are not in the least cooperatively minded. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised that the block on User:Kingarthur581 is 42 days. The editor has indeed been disruptive at times, but per BITE, I attributed this to just taking a bit longer than some to learn WP procedures. Part of the reasons for blocking was given as vandalism on Military, ignoring WP:V, and refusing to discuss. But when the block occurred, I was in a discussion with the editor at Military#About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section about comparing quality of sources. Also, I don't see how the edits in question on Military are actually vandalism. To me, it seemed like the editor was in the midst of coming over from the dark side when blocked.
I'm not familiar with blocking criteria and length; if this seems in keeping with custom to you, or even just not that significant, then fine, no response needed. But if not, what might I do, if anything? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 ( talk) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. You're absolutely right. I think it was an automated thing with the visual editor. Thanks for correcting that. I'll correct that myself on Sarah Boyack.
Thank you Drmies! You are helping me get started on Wikipedia as a editor. I hope you have a good rest of the day!
Editor420691337666 (
talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
On 12 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Madwoman (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the collection Madwoman, Jamaican-American poet Shara McCallum uses both English and Patwa, a creole she heard while growing up but never saw in writing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Madwoman (book). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Madwoman (book)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Please revoke talk page access, as the spam links continue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 12:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're keeping well amidst th'encircling gloom. Will you be available to look at this over the weekend? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did I edit everything and revert it back to its original format? സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 13:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been able to edit for two or three days I was blocked until March 14, 2020. സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 08:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I just took offence to the almost constant aspersions and self justification there. I do not like being talked about in that way when I did try to advise them. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
And now this [ [7]], continued falsehoods (And I only just noticed continued claims of bias and now of being a secret NRA editor), the assumptions of bad faith continue. I also note they continue to comment on me (and note I did not in fact revert their edit first, that was done [ [8]] two days before I weighed in) on their talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Should (indeed how) I respond to this [
[9]], to be clear it is riddled with falsehoods (as they have already been told some of these claims are not true, yet still repeat them)?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I have had to reply at ANI as this is beyond a joke. I cannot stand idly by whilst blatant lies are told about me. Why are these ABF against be still being allowed? That ANI should not have been allowed to be reopened as it is without any foundation, and should now be closed as it is with out any foundation, is is just cock full of self justifying wikilaywering and deceit. Can you please close it? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. The RfC on this last year that you closed says "There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." [11] but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed." That's quite different and makes it closer to how we use the SPLC, which is not what your close suggests. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully all is well with you and yours, how is the Netherlands coping with this wrath of God? In Portugal it's so-so, and where i live is as of today untouched by the plague, or so it seems.
This guy in this article is really (in my book at least) being a handful, they continue to add pretty much the entire storyline in the intro, which should be nothing else than a career summary (and in this case, we are talking about a 20-YEAR-OLD who has done nothing in football so far, nothing of relevance that is). They even insert nicknames (Arsenalistas, how S.C. Braga men are known)!
Could you have a word with them please? I feel i might do more harm than good if I engage (NOTE: that is if you agree with me, if you agree with their approach just undo me and i'll stop).
Attentively, thanks in advance and regards -- Quite A Character ( talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
If you could clarify precisely where I accused Carthradge of socking, I'd appreciate it. You maybe confusing me with the IP. I did accuse carthradge of assuming bad faith, etc., but that's hardly the same thing.
And, of course, you can hardly be suggesting that I was accusing them of socking by recommending an ANI case: after all, SPI is thataway, as any fule knoweth.
All the best! —— SN 54129 13:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
TruthGuardians ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive as usual with his baseless personal attacks and mass canvassing Jackson fans for retaining a POVFORK. Here he falsely alleges me to have been blocked for "edit warring" and misrepresents my unrelated edits to this subject. He also alleges a couple of us to be an SPA and here he engages in mass canvassing. Excelse ( talk) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Use your spidey powers on this to see the edit summary. It's clearly libelous - I would email it to you, but that wouldn't work. [12] It's also obviously a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Tracked it down and squashed. See this diff. Suggest a revdel. Geoff | Who, me? 23:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate your help over at Michael Douglas. Sorry you had to go through all those revisions! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please globally lock 93.143.66.255 ( talk · contribs)? This self-confessing Muslim Bosnian has just threatened to kill me on my IDwiki talk page. Thanks. Flix11 ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you block all Croatian IP as prevention? Because this is an IP hopper. Or maybe block all from Dubrovnik and Split. Flix11 ( talk) 02:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please protect (or at least semi-protect for autoconfirmed users) Tiri (footballer)? I am going out of my wikimind, if it hasn't exploded already!
It's like this user said here ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Fodbold-fan#Footballers_playing_for_amateur_clubs_post-retirement, his reply was to a mere technical question, but that's OK. As you may well know, i use hystericals in my summaries a lot - not proud of it - but never insulted this person), i definitely should get a life.
Kind regards to you, thanks in advance -- Quite A Character ( talk) 19:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but that did not stop anything. Idiot (or idiots) resorted to an account (maybe created with the sole purpose of disrupting the page) and resumed the shenanigans (Mr. Tiri is like the eighth or ninth player i see that "plays" for Kerala Blasters FC according to these "users"). Cheers! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I went past that edit too quickly without thinking about the level. I always appreciate the reminder to think about that.
I have been having some trouble saving edits. Most have gone through a little slowly but I can't edit my user page. I get a Wikimedia error about fetch errors. My user page was rather long. I split off over one-third of it into a sub-page. I can't save either one of them. I have put off looking for help for this mainly because I have been spending time writing some new articles in connection with the WikiProject Military History backlog reduction drive this month and thought this might take some time to figure out. I know the page is long but not so long that changes have not taken until this month, and the page has been much longer for quite some time though it may not appear so at first glance due to use of collapsible sections.
If you can provide some help or guidance, I will appreciate it. I realize this may not be an administrator's area so I do not want to take up a lot of time on this.
I have put an updated version of just the first part of my user page at User:Donner60/sandbox#Sandbox user page temporarily. Since my user page had quite a lot of vandalism in the past and was semi-protected by Delta Quad in 2016, I thought it might be a good idea for that page to be semi-protected in case some vandal discovers it. So I ask that you semi-protect that page.
Thanks for you help. By the way, I hope the coronavirus is not affecting you or your family and that it is not causing you too much inconvenience or even loss. Donner60 ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I cam across User talk:77.97.43.28, full of warning out of 2011. I do not believe that the same user will still be using that IP. And I think that a new warning should not be c0onnected with an earlier sockpuppet. So, can I clear it and add the new warning? The Banner talk 13:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, just a note to say thank you for this which I had great delight in reading today. Currently, like most of Planet Earth, I'm struggling to find things to do; Spring is yet to indicate as to whether it's safe to carry out this year's first batch of garden chores; the classic car is still in hibernation, so that was out of bounds; my other classic blew a head gasket last weekend, but there's nowhere open to get the bloody thing fixed, and there's not much on TV that offers a break from all the corono-depression that is currently bleeding out of my tv screen. So it was both a thrill and a pleasure to come across The Coral Island today, on my travels around the turgid nonsense going on elsewhere on WP. Thank you. Cassianto Talk 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, could you or any of your page-watchers please intervene in Christchurch mosque shootings article? The article contains original research in the background section which seems to be added there to justify what that terrorist did. I was reverted by an editor who seems not to understand what an original research is. see here- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
shows up in the thoughts I hope you can read from my mind about a discussion at Talk:Nazism by Kike korrektor (well, that was their original username, they wanted it changed to Kkorrektor but didn't get that either}. Anyway, if you read "To spare me from the necessity of writing an essay , please read National Socialist Program points 7. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 20. 21. So the nazis stated 'social policies' (or however you want to phrase that haha) are a key tenet of their ideology. Given how many points address it, given all the policies they've implemented to achieve it, I find 'embettering the social aspects of life' (subject to rephrasing) to be one of the major ideas of nazism. So I propose to include that in the article about the nazi ideology." and then look at those points at National Socialist Program, guess what I'm thinking? NN Doug Weller talk 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You blocked this user a few months ago for a personal attack and their talk page history is nothing but warnings to knock it off; they've decided to go guns-blazing into an AfD and drop the n-word into the nom and go polemic because 'white house staffers' use the term. I'm not sure this is on its face blockable (I'd warn on the AfD in response, but I'm not into serving troll food today), but it does seem like they're trying to come in and use fighting words to goad out an argument from some poor AfD regular just looking to vote! and nothing more. Nate • ( chatter) 09:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
He is known for three things: 1. very wide vocal range 2. singing in multiple music genres 3. mixing vocal techniques from different music genres in one song.
Therefore that article cannot be left without mentioning his vocal range.
Is that acceptble as reference? https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/music/vocal-sensation-dimash-kudaibergen-coming-to-dubai-1.67143229 The source is an established daily newspaper available in print in several countries. Gulf News — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeUnknown010 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The text doesn't say anything about multiple genres and mixing vocal techniques and I didn't intend to use it as reference for that (it is not missing in his Wikipedia article), but only as reference, that he is known for his wide vocal range. That fact simply cannot be missing in the article, because he is primarily known for it, and whoever heard him sing, says, that he has the widest vocal range (to make it clear: I don't mean to write in the article, that he has the widest range ever, just that he is known for a wide range) he has ever heard. That fact is also not contested or questioned by anyone anywhere. MeUnknown010 ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Found another possible reference, an article about him mentioning his range: https://www.souzveche.ru/articles/culture/43136/?fbclid=IwAR2ZIwMY5G0zyey2DPTGL7Ihvh6TEth9szGhzV-UIyudEsW7AIG__DP-E14 Source: a newspaper available in print in Russia and Belarus. MeUnknown010 ( talk) 23:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Hey Drmies and Praxidicae, I think I owe you an apology. I completely screwed up my initial comment on that AfD, and I should have assumed good faith from you when you responded. I only rarely participate in politically charged discussions, and I didn't realize just how much one should be careful with their words when commenting on those pages. So, sorry, and I'll try to do better next time. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 13:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Cengizsogutlu ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So far in the course of the "discussion" on Doogh, user:Cengizsogutlu has edit-warred [13] [14] [15] [16], issued a personal attack, accused other editor(s) of "hating Turks" and canvassed another editor to assist them on the article Doogh.
Their canvassing post at user:Beshogur talk page:
Google translated:
Not sure what can be done. I have posted a warning concerning the Wikipedia:CANVASSING. [17] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
On 3 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goulven of Léon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Breton saint Goulven of Léon may have been confused with a legendary murderer and rapist featured in the poem " Gwerz Skolan", giving rise to a number of place names with elements of both individuals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goulven of Léon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Goulven of Léon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
On 3 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gwerz Skolan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Breton saint Goulven of Léon may have been confused with a legendary murderer and rapist featured in the poem " Gwerz Skolan", giving rise to a number of place names with elements of both individuals? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gwerz Skolan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Even if he were as competent at writing as he believes he is, his attitude would be annoying and, yes, disruptive. But producing something like "encountered apprehended threats" [18] when he means "countered perceived threats" is just absurd. And if you do anything to try to make the phrasing more clear and less stilted has has a fit. What's up with this guy? Not the first time I have run into him but it is getting old. There should be a wikiaward for most extraneous and obscure words introduced. If it can be said in 20 words instead of 10 in a way that will cause the average reader to have to go over it 10 times before understanding, that is "well-woven" text according to him. —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Help! I'm playing whack-a-mole for unsourced additions by user IPv6 2605:e000 who you reverted here, but who has also been active on numerous other articles, mostly related to Mexico in some way, and exhibiting signs of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. See for example: Latin America, History of the United States (2008–present), Economy of Mexico, Immigration to Mexico, and others (see slash-64 rev history). I added one discussion at User_talk:2605:E000:93C1:5B00:6DF3:7890:D460:E021#Latin America, but he'll probably never see it, as he pops up at a different IP nearly every time. Mathglot ( talk) 06:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies! I read an article you put a lot of work in that was linked from the DYK section on the Main Page: Goulven of Léon. I have a bit of an issue with the first paragraph of the Biography section: “The spring (the Feunteun Sant Goulven), now near the saint's church, still cures people miraculously.[3]”. I am not sure if miraculous cures should be stated as a fact like that, or if it should be more along the lines of supposed miracles being attributed to the spring. I cannot read the original source, and am not sure how to phrase any changes, so I was hoping you could help me. If, in the end, it does in fact cure miraculously - do you know its track record for arthritis? Biskitty ( talk) 21:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no proper debate, just going in circles and ignoring other editors while pushing wanted content etc. I would like to kindly invite you as an independent and experienced editor to weigh in, because this may easily get out of hand. [20] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd just like to pop up a call for help. You may remember an IBAN between two difficult personalities: HiLo48 and yours truly. Somehow that got dropped, and we've worked on the same articles more or less serenely until recently.
I took your advice - I think it was you, but wise advice anyway - to stay away from his user pages and contributions list. I've been noticing a tendency recently that I'll edit an article or make some comment on the talk page, and then this editor responds. I figure that we both edit the same pages in the same area of Australian politics, we have the option that stacks any new pages onto a crowded watchlist, and when there's an edit, we go check it. Edits on political articles are often worrisome, with people pushing barrows wanting to slant the path a bit in their direction. Presumably we both have the laudable objective of keeping things on the level.
A look at our contributions list shows that there's no stalking going on. If I make a spelling fix on an article about some old British frigate, I can be confident this guy won't surface and paint a comment on the side. And I have no interest in most of the stuff he looks at. It's just the Australian politics topics.
Anyway, we interact, and until recently this wasn't a problem.
But now it is.
Perhaps it's time for another IBAN. Or maybe there's some other path. This sort of crap is a distraction, and last time there was a dramatic exit and a wikiholiday. This chap does a lot of good work and I'd hate him to get upset or leave, but I get the feeling that I've gone about as far as I can in asking him to take it cool and stay on-topic. As a diplomat, I make a good bricklayer. I know my limitations. -- Pete ( talk) 02:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
If there is an IBAN that was never appealed and thereby cancelled, then the two editors involved had better stop violating the IBAN. If either party wants to appeal the IBAN, then ANI or AN is the correct venue. Otherwise, these two editors need to observe any IBAN that was enacted. Softlavender ( talk) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you think I really care about some of the trivia we discuss? I care about someone bucking the system to push their own OR barrow without quoting sources or policy. Yelling at other editors to get one's own way doesn't work; it just makes the excursion outside the system more egregious. Why not count to ten or go meditate for a bit when the red mist rises. Go find a piece of wikipolicy to hit the other guy with. I mean, it's what I do, and I don't get all wrapped around the axles over it. It just gives me another excuse to admire the beauty of the system.
What has been very helpful in my life has been the School of Practical Philosophy, which teaches mindfulness and ways of handling stress. There are branches in Victoria and I can recommend them highly. I am no longer with that mob - the Canberra group fell apart - but I found a similar study society looking at the same material.
Or we could take up one of Drmies' excellent suggestions. Find a potential DYK article and work on that together sounds good. If it's something we can agree on, I'm more than happy to be agreeable and have an excuse to do so. -- Pete ( talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I reckon the only way that Skyring & HiLo48 are gonna break their impasse is to take it to ANI or Arbcom. GoodDay ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reuben Bright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Octet ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You removed the evidence I linked. I am sorry if it broke any rules, but how else should I do it? That guy seems to be stalking me and refuses to tell me why he wants my social media accounts. I've never talked to that person before. -- KingErikII ( トークページ) 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
As much as I completely agree that signatures should correspond to usernames and shouldn't use non-latin scripts, AFAIK it's something the community has repeatedly rejected (or lacked consensus on), meaning we have dozens of regulars whose signatures fall afoul of those rules. Always a shame to see newbies told they['re the only ones who] need to follow certain rules... :/ In case it's not clear, signatures that cannot be typed, or which require looking up the username behind it are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so in part I'm secretly hoping you enforce this with the regulars, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not made any personal attack to User talk:Nikkimaria, see the talk page, all I did was point her error, which is allowed, making false threat of personal attack is Wikipedia:Harassment, regardless we are trying to resolve a dispute, and LI just showed her history of abuse of unreliable sources, and history of edit warring, where is the personal attack? I even told her to see WP:DR multiple times. Please check it, it was not a personal attack, I just showed her abusive edit history. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you'd noticed, but your talk page isn't being archived any more. I noticed a bizarre error from sigmabot [21] and wondered what was going on. It looks like your "total spam" URL is now blocking sigmabot from archiving your talk page. Pretty hilarious. Tarl N. ( discuss) 09:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it my imagination or is there too much self-sourced material there now? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you kindly protect the page Mey Chan again? There has been a persistent vandal who loves to make up information about her. Her page in Indonesian has been permanently protected because the vandal kept returning. Mimihitam ( talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (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 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Hi Drmies! While patrolling recent changes, I ran into an editor ( Arrely11331) who kept changing the domain of sources on a bunch of articles to be 'gaylesbiantimes'. After looking at the history of one of the articles, I just happened to see that there was another account with a similar username that was blocked. And, as you can probably predict, this account is a sock puppet. The reason I'm messaging you about this is because you were the user who blocked the account that I happened to spot ( Ars3nal311). Looking at the block summary you added, it looks like this user was trying to pull wool over your eyes by saying that what he's doing is legitimate. I was wondering if you happen to have any more information about this user, or if there are other accounts that you've blocked. The edits being made, while small, stick out like a sore thumb. I'm just not sure of what he's trying to accomplish... Advertising? Trolling? What also has me concerned is the fact that some of the edits by the account I blocked were modifying the URL of the source, which was already set to be 'gaylesbiantimes', and on articles of subjects where it's quite unlikely that this domain is going to cover as a source. I'm wondering if there's ongoing disruption that goes deeper and further back... ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish engravers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dr. Mies,
Tympanus, whom he just blocked, appears to be using an IP to comment now [1].-- Ermenrich ( talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah ha! Now I understand. Of course I know that meaning of "weed", but the word has never been actively used in that meaning in any circle I have been a member of, so it does not automatically spring to mind when I see the word, as it evidently did to yours when you saw that user name. As for 420, that is totally new to me. Evidently I am seriously out of touch. All part of getting older, I suppose. JBW ( talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Bristol...brutalist architecture...Portishead...Massive Attack...Neanderthals and Iron Age hill forts...just fucking beep me up already, will you? Drmies ( talk) 01:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this might warrant some CU magic dust, I suspect there's been years of logged out editing and since they edited in the last month, data won't be too stale. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
[2] Doug Weller talk 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be of interest to you, but I stumbled upon it and removed a lot of stuff only about secession, mainly other groups and that mainly self-sourced, probably more cleanup to be done. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doctor. Regarding your recent comment. The most complete list of what was done (IP blocks and article semiprotections) is now at Talk:The Doors#Selecting the articles to protect. No objection if you want to relocate the information from that thread and put it in a subpage of Talk:The Doors.
For a while, I was using underlines to show which articles were semied. When I get some time, I might try to update that section with your recent admin actions so we know where the remaining gaps are. Some Doors articles can be left open as honeypots. No point in opening an SPI except it would be a central place to stash the information. Or we could open up an WP:LTA report but I have heard that is a serious step. I don't know if a long-term case of nuisance vandalism would be enough of a reason for an LTA. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. I'm sorry for adding those Crynchyroll and Fandompost citations. I don't want to add the citations from fansites and commercial websites anymore. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies,
I would appreciate your input in a dispute. Would you have some time and energy for that?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hellom Drmies ! Which is reliable or unreliable ? The most reliable is Anime News Network. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not reliable because they were fansites. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Drmies, thank you for your message about my edits to the Draft page on Susan Magsamen. I wonder if you might be more specific about which parts of the draft are promotional? I recently attended a talk by Magsamen and I thought she would be a good person about whom to create my first page. That said, I am new to editing Wikipedia (this is the first page I've ever tried to create), and like any beginner I'm sure I will make mistakes. If you could be more specific that would be enormously helpful. Thank you! User:ECDonaldson ( talk 10:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, thank you so much for this feedback! It is extremely helpful and opens my eyes in terms of what is actually appropriate to include. I will set about editing it down immediately; I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "notable," on the one hand, and overestimated the credibility of some of my sources (think a review, and articles, would be okay to include). Would it be okay to trouble you to take another look once I'm done paring it down? Thank you again, User:ECDonaldson ( talk 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies and The Lord of Math, thank you both for your messages. As someone who is just learning, I try not to be scared off by things...but it also helps that I didn't actually realize that a permanent "warning" had been added to my draft. Nor did I realize, in fact, that anyone could see my draft as I was creating it. I'd say this was mostly a pleasant surprise, since I'm sure my draft would have run into even bigger issues (or just been flatly rejected) if I had submitted it without any feedback. That said, where is the room for learning? If my new draft page has been branded with a "severe warning" and it's not even off the ground, how can I recover? I have certainly made some massive edits...but are they moving in the right direction? Thanks again for your guidance, User:ECDonaldson ( talk 20:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me what to do. I guess I just saw one of them, and it legitimately looked like "one of the other vandals down the street" - I guess I'll have to increment my scales. Thanks a lot. tLoM (The Lord of Math) ( Message; contribs) ( Report false positive) 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Can I edit the Robot Girls Z article ? I want to add only one reference from Anime News Network only. Crunchyroll and Fandompost are not allowed then. Yoga Widya 1994 ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a discussion at Talk:Source-code editor#Questionning current "No addition" policy that's taken some disturbing turns. If and only if you have some extra time could you take a look at this? I hoping it will soon sort itself out regardless, but I'm far from any familiar ground here. Plus I'd like to know what I may have done to trigger the... distrubation. I understand if you have more pressing issues. Thanks in either case. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Goos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Goos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Abraham Goos), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that engraver Abraham Goos and merchant Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq were responsible for the first map of the Holy Land printed in Hebrew (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jacob ben Abraham Zaddiq), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning it up. I have thousands of school articles on my watch list and sometimes I lose track of threads I should be following up on. Meters ( talk) 22:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Hey, I noticed you blocked Special:Contributions/2409:4070:2000::/36. Now that we have partial blocks, I was thinking that this could actually be a useful test of the feature. If we convert this range block to be a partial block on just Wikipedia: namespace, my understanding is that this would prevent any IP user on that range from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, etc. But they could still edit regular articles, like, say, List of Supernatural characters. What do you think? NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies ! Can you remove these tons of spamlinks such as Crunchyroll, Fandompost and Amazon.com on Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT as you did on Dragon Ball (TV series)? Because it considered as the spamlinks then.
Hi there matey, all well? Sure bloody hope so!
Situation getting out of hand, and then some. User (with at least two accounts and an IP) keeps reverting the match fixing scandal section. No news have emerged of the ban being lifted (it could have, as another one of the banned players, André Almeida, is back playing pro football in my country), but anyway such ban was a fact (all over the news https://www.google.com/search?q=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&oq=rafael+veloso+almeida+apostas&aqs=chrome..69i57.5688j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Could be a open-and-shut case of WP:COI, his agent, a friend, Mr. Veloso himself? I talked with :@ Mattythewhite: regarding the subject, he asked that i ask (oh, the redundance of it all!) to have page protected (auto-confirmed users only would prevent more vandalism, am i correct in this assumption?), Matty says he would do it himself but he is directly involved so he can not.
User seems to be from the Faroe Islands, so chances are they know jack shit of what happened in Portugal (but my money is on COI, like i said previously). Kind regards, from Portugal (they reverted me/us again, i'm close to breaking the 3RR so i better stop) -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Not telling you how to do your work of course, but does not seem to be the case. Utter nuisance switched to the IP and reverted again! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Now you got me thinking about it too... All hail the mighty Bruno Varela, this year he'll surely earn an Eredivisie medal!! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
On 6 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Witch Hunt (Rush song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the difference between live versions of Rush's " Witch Hunt" were seen as an instance of "translation" à la Walter Benjamin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Witch Hunt (Rush song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Witch Hunt (Rush song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Take a look at what I rev/deleted. But the whole article seems mainly written by members not bothering with sources. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked and haven't a clue. It doesn't help that the user has been mostly making edits that say little about their interests. I have let the rest of my family know about our long-lost cousin. They are thrilled! -- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If this worked for you, would you mind doing the same thing with my username? Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 02:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to deal with Recent deaths ( Mirella Freni, Volker Spengler), I don't want to deal also with edit-warring over an article title, Die Wolke. It was the writers wish - obviously - to have a harmless-sounding title, and not Fall-Out. Can we follow? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day! | |
---|---|
Alte Liebe I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses |
also Lucille Eichengreen, please watch -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thank you - my little contrib to the day is Alte Liebe, - the other one started but not gotten far, + there's real life, and real death. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean the R-word is officially more offensive than the F-word on Wikipedia? :l Dark Knight 2149 02:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/OldandGood2876 On one hand, it's a reliable source, but on the other hand, it feels like using Wikipedia as soapbox. Your thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
To be fair to these companies, these are the “effective” rates and were calculated using publicly available filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The tax expenses reflected in those documents do not necessarily match those in the private tax filings, and the analysis does not include state and local taxes.
If companies aren't paying enough taxes, isn't it the government's fault for enabling and encouraging it? OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you definitely caught at least one LTA in there. Somebody from Southeastern Michigan has been adding fictitious material to animation-related pages for a long time. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 02:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The other day you or someone else edited Alan Warrens page for having to many photos and said that I shouldn't do that. However Carl Van Rechtens page is almost packed full of his photos but not Alan Warrens. What the hell? Either keep my edits or change Carl Van Rechtens.
Dynamite16 ( talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No not at all, but it is that one page is packed to the rafters of photographs and another isn't. I got told off for something which I thought was unfair and that I was doing something reasonable, but then I found this other page of Carl Van Rechtens that was packed to the rafters so I thought that shouldn't that also be like only 6-7 photographs as well because of the (in my opinion silly but I am now prepared to go by) rules? Dynamite16 ( talk) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I not quickly change it back just to get a copy of this so called crazy gallery and have it as pdf and afterwards put it back to its current format? Dynamite16 ( talk) 18:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah Dr.K sent me a thank you message for reverting it to its current format. All is fine now many thanks Dynamite16 ( talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the constructive feed back - Got it! I'll clean up the content and I will switch the URL's as soon as I learn to do it! Yikes! I'm determined to get it right! Thanks for your help! Harpmom39 ( talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) |
Hey Drmies , I noticed your edit to my draft Karlyn Percil and I'd like reach out to get further recommendations. I've made some edits to sources, which seemed to be the primary issue. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
and - which is better - still actively precious, or is it preciously active? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You wanted my attention, you got it. I'll make this simple. I feel that film plots should be as detailed as possible, in regards to what goes on. I have seen plenty of other film pages that have plot far beyond the 400-700 limit and no one has had any problems with them. Nashwalker ( talk) 20:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I come and go and spend such extended times away that when I come back for a bit I'm always a bit hesitant in case something major has changed. I appreciated knowing I wasn't as far out of line as I first thought.
Wish me luck; I'm about to go try and deal with a basically non existent reception and box office section and I almost never play with ref tags. It'll be fun! Millahnna ( talk) 03:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
+sysop
so you should be able to do anything PCR would do. Maybe
xaosflux could lend some insight into the technical issues you are having.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 17:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Hi there, You recently deleted tables from a page I was updating on the basis that I had no citations. The page was for Woodgrove High School, under the band program page. I am a band student at Woodgrove, and all of that information was from personal experience. I would like to have the tables back, so I would like to know how you believe I should cite that information. Thanks in advance. Andrewcstewart21 ( talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies, shalom. I noticed in your recent edit on the "Vita" Disambiguation page here that you deleted the entry for Josephus' work entitled "Vita," a term often used to describe the book Life of Flavius Josephus. In my humble opinion, many scholars and academics know Josephus' fourth published work purely by that title, as you can see here, and here, and here, and here, and in the summary written in this article here, and if you scroll down in this Encyclopædia Britannica article here, under the heading "Josephus as Historian," you'll find the paragraph that reads: "Appended to the Antiquities was a Vita (Life), which is less an autobiography than an apology for Josephus’ conduct in Galilee during the revolt" (End Quote). Often, citations taken from the book are simply listed under the title "Vita," as you can see in the first paragraph of the next web-page here. The title is also used in the abstract here, among other places. In consideration of which things I say that, perhaps, it may have been premature to delete this important entry from the Disambiguation page. Perhaps we can get more feedback on this issue from other contributing editors. Davidbena ( talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
What we really do need is a more clear signpost to indicate that it is a common word for such a document, and what we really need is a list of vitae. I mean, we have f*ing lists of everything--here's something that is actually important. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This is simply how the word vita is used. There is nothing specific about its usage in relation to Josephus. Nothing. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Drmies:I kindly ask of you to take a second look at the Disambiguation page Vita. You will see there many entries, each having a different connotation for the same word. Since Josephus is a well-known personage and his works are used and named by a myriad of scholars, shouldn't we at least make reference to this important work, Vita (Josephus), which was composed by him? I, personally, see nothing wrong nor amiss about having it added to the Disambiguation page, but, then again, my own personal judgment may be wrong. We may wish to ask ourselves what wrong will it do by adding it to the list? Since I do not rely upon my own judgment (which is often in error), would you agree that we get a larger consensus on this issue, such as by posting a WP:RfC? Shalom. Davidbena ( talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Nice work. Cassianto Talk 21:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
See the caption for the picture that was added to User:Ava-Mae Holman. Figured I'd let you know about it... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I'd like to bring to your attention a BLP violation at Talk:Julian Assange. SPECIFICO has referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices": diff. The fact that SPECIFICO is referring to GRU agents is clear from the context of this discussion: [6]. The word "accomplice" implies both that Assange is a criminal, and that he conspired with GRU agents. This is a very serious BLP violation. I have asked SPECIFICO to strike these comments ( diff), but SPECIFICO has not done so. Please take the necessary actions to make sure than this serious BLP issue is addressed. Also pinging Bishonen, who might be able to help. Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest that
Guy should not be the person summarizing the discussion at
Talk:Julian Assange. At
Talk:Julian Assange, Guy has been quite uncharacteristically complaining about "Assange cultists"
and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more"
(referring to publicity surrounding a letter in support of Assange by 130 prominent figures from German politics and media, including one of Germany's most famous journalists and a recent Vice Chancellor / head of one of Germany's two major parties). In response to questions by a number of editors, Guy has not offered any substantiation for these wild claims about cultists, MRAs, etc. I have serious concerns about Guy's impartiality here, and if such comments themselves do no violate
WP:BLP or
WP:NPA, it is only because they are so diffuse that one could plausibly deny that they're directed at any one person (e.g., the former Vice Chancellor of Germany, the journalists for Germany's largest papers who wrote articles about the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, or the many editors at
Talk:Julian Assange arguing for inclusion of the appeal).
@ Newyorkbrad: Is it acceptable for editors to be opine on talk pages that living people are part of a criminal conspiracy? This is what you seem to be arguing - that unless an action is clearly legally actionable, it is no violation of WP:BLP. I thought that WP:BLP was supposed to be applied very cautiously. Asserting that a living person criminally conspired with intelligence agents (which is not an established fact in Assange's case, and I'm very surprised that Guy is making that unfounded assertion here) is surely a very serious attack on a living person. Without very good sourcing, it cannot be made.
As for whether the statement is admissible because it is an opinion: any comment left by an editor could be construed as being an opinion. If editors' opinions cannot, by definition, violate
WP:BLP, then BLP is a hollow document on talk pages. But to the contrary,
WP:BLP states, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages."
If editors can make unsubstantiated, defamatory claims about living persons under the guise of opinion, why even apply BLP to talk pages? -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@
Newyorkbrad: I'd also like to point out that
WP:BLP is not limited to legally actionable statements.
WP:BLP mentions the laws of the United States, but it talks about much more than just what the law requires: material about living persons, including on talk pages, "requires a high degree of sensitivity"
and must adhere to
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR and other core policies. I think it's obvious that calling a living person a criminal conspirator working together with intelligence services is a violation of these tenets, whether or not they would legally be considered opinion. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 16:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A demitasse for you | ||
Presented to Half-Admin Drmies |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to Drmies for his fearless defense of Wikipedia in the face of specious onslaughts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
For sorting out that BLP issue last night. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, There is an editor who is asking me to move a draft to the main space (convert it to an article). He said he can't do it because he is not an extended confirmed editor. Should I do that? Here is one of the drafts Draft:Fkhrettin Koca. Can I do that? Thanks.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 20:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, why do you think the grime comment is irrelevent? Not sure if you are from the UK or understand the culture but it's an important revelation in the fact it reveals an insight into the dark humour behind some of the lyrics. Please can you tell me why this is a problem for you?
Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC) It's at the bottom for you now :) That particular collaboration was one of the biggest tunes by some of the oldest artists, a pivotal moment in both their careers. The interview is directly from the perspective of the producer of that record. UKF was a music blog first, the record label stuff came later and is not their main line of business. That particular track was definitely not on their label so don't see how it can be biased. Maybe you could give me a list of reputable sources where you can quote underground music artists from? I don't think these are the kinds of artists you will see in the mainstream press as its underground music. The whole concept of grime has strong underground roots. Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
Good summary :) The interesting point being is that isn't something thats been said publically by a key artist in this way before. It's a heavily overlooked facet of the whole genre. Bryanlikealioninzion ( talk) 08:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
Hi Doc. I hope everything is well with you and yours. Normally, I wouldn't bother you, but this concerns a revert based on a past RfC we had commented on. After this revert, I opened a talkpage discussion because I realised that, before my revert, the concerts of the band appeared twice in the article: once in the prose, and then at the table. Apart from the old argument of notability for these concerts, having them appear twice in the article seems excessive, at least to me. Dr. K. 23:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there man, all well?
Let's work together to improve (yet) another article in this encyclopedia, shall we? Can you please add the translation to the source #12 in Adrián Dalmau (from Voetbal International)? I have a slight hunch as to what it may mean, but i don't want to take any chances, do accommodate by all means :)
Thanks in advance, keep it up -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you believe in 13 years (and counting) i never once did that? -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies - I've been looking at the three users, and one IP's residual edits - Any chance of removing User:1008rajpuranalas/sandbox, User talk:Shanaleshwar and Draft:Shree Shanaleshwar Swayambhu Mahadev before these get copy-pasted again as a mass of "new" articles? - Arjayay ( talk) 18:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask you a favour? Ealdgyth, Agricolae, and I have been trying to get a new user, Berserk Kerberos, to pay attention instead of edit warring. You can see all the relevant conversations on their talk page and by looking at the history of articles they've edited. I don't usually deal with things requiring administrator involvement; can you take a look and let me know what you think a good next step would be? ANI seems awfully harsh for some who does seem to want to help, though they are not in the least cooperatively minded. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised that the block on User:Kingarthur581 is 42 days. The editor has indeed been disruptive at times, but per BITE, I attributed this to just taking a bit longer than some to learn WP procedures. Part of the reasons for blocking was given as vandalism on Military, ignoring WP:V, and refusing to discuss. But when the block occurred, I was in a discussion with the editor at Military#About Updating the military power comparison list Capability development section about comparing quality of sources. Also, I don't see how the edits in question on Military are actually vandalism. To me, it seemed like the editor was in the midst of coming over from the dark side when blocked.
I'm not familiar with blocking criteria and length; if this seems in keeping with custom to you, or even just not that significant, then fine, no response needed. But if not, what might I do, if anything? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 18:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 ( talk) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. You're absolutely right. I think it was an automated thing with the visual editor. Thanks for correcting that. I'll correct that myself on Sarah Boyack.
Thank you Drmies! You are helping me get started on Wikipedia as a editor. I hope you have a good rest of the day!
Editor420691337666 (
talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
On 12 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Madwoman (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the collection Madwoman, Jamaican-American poet Shara McCallum uses both English and Patwa, a creole she heard while growing up but never saw in writing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Madwoman (book). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Madwoman (book)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Please revoke talk page access, as the spam links continue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 12:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, hope you're keeping well amidst th'encircling gloom. Will you be available to look at this over the weekend? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did I edit everything and revert it back to its original format? സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 13:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been able to edit for two or three days I was blocked until March 14, 2020. സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 08:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know സുദീപ്.എസ്സ് ( talk) 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I just took offence to the almost constant aspersions and self justification there. I do not like being talked about in that way when I did try to advise them. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
And now this [ [7]], continued falsehoods (And I only just noticed continued claims of bias and now of being a secret NRA editor), the assumptions of bad faith continue. I also note they continue to comment on me (and note I did not in fact revert their edit first, that was done [ [8]] two days before I weighed in) on their talk page. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Should (indeed how) I respond to this [
[9]], to be clear it is riddled with falsehoods (as they have already been told some of these claims are not true, yet still repeat them)?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I have had to reply at ANI as this is beyond a joke. I cannot stand idly by whilst blatant lies are told about me. Why are these ABF against be still being allowed? That ANI should not have been allowed to be reopened as it is without any foundation, and should now be closed as it is with out any foundation, is is just cock full of self justifying wikilaywering and deceit. Can you please close it? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. The RfC on this last year that you closed says "There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail." [11] but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed." That's quite different and makes it closer to how we use the SPLC, which is not what your close suggests. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully all is well with you and yours, how is the Netherlands coping with this wrath of God? In Portugal it's so-so, and where i live is as of today untouched by the plague, or so it seems.
This guy in this article is really (in my book at least) being a handful, they continue to add pretty much the entire storyline in the intro, which should be nothing else than a career summary (and in this case, we are talking about a 20-YEAR-OLD who has done nothing in football so far, nothing of relevance that is). They even insert nicknames (Arsenalistas, how S.C. Braga men are known)!
Could you have a word with them please? I feel i might do more harm than good if I engage (NOTE: that is if you agree with me, if you agree with their approach just undo me and i'll stop).
Attentively, thanks in advance and regards -- Quite A Character ( talk) 23:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
If you could clarify precisely where I accused Carthradge of socking, I'd appreciate it. You maybe confusing me with the IP. I did accuse carthradge of assuming bad faith, etc., but that's hardly the same thing.
And, of course, you can hardly be suggesting that I was accusing them of socking by recommending an ANI case: after all, SPI is thataway, as any fule knoweth.
All the best! —— SN 54129 13:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
TruthGuardians ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being disruptive as usual with his baseless personal attacks and mass canvassing Jackson fans for retaining a POVFORK. Here he falsely alleges me to have been blocked for "edit warring" and misrepresents my unrelated edits to this subject. He also alleges a couple of us to be an SPA and here he engages in mass canvassing. Excelse ( talk) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Use your spidey powers on this to see the edit summary. It's clearly libelous - I would email it to you, but that wouldn't work. [12] It's also obviously a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Tracked it down and squashed. See this diff. Suggest a revdel. Geoff | Who, me? 23:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate your help over at Michael Douglas. Sorry you had to go through all those revisions! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please globally lock 93.143.66.255 ( talk · contribs)? This self-confessing Muslim Bosnian has just threatened to kill me on my IDwiki talk page. Thanks. Flix11 ( talk) 02:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you block all Croatian IP as prevention? Because this is an IP hopper. Or maybe block all from Dubrovnik and Split. Flix11 ( talk) 02:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please protect (or at least semi-protect for autoconfirmed users) Tiri (footballer)? I am going out of my wikimind, if it hasn't exploded already!
It's like this user said here ( /info/en/?search=User_talk:Fodbold-fan#Footballers_playing_for_amateur_clubs_post-retirement, his reply was to a mere technical question, but that's OK. As you may well know, i use hystericals in my summaries a lot - not proud of it - but never insulted this person), i definitely should get a life.
Kind regards to you, thanks in advance -- Quite A Character ( talk) 19:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but that did not stop anything. Idiot (or idiots) resorted to an account (maybe created with the sole purpose of disrupting the page) and resumed the shenanigans (Mr. Tiri is like the eighth or ninth player i see that "plays" for Kerala Blasters FC according to these "users"). Cheers! -- Quite A Character ( talk) 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I went past that edit too quickly without thinking about the level. I always appreciate the reminder to think about that.
I have been having some trouble saving edits. Most have gone through a little slowly but I can't edit my user page. I get a Wikimedia error about fetch errors. My user page was rather long. I split off over one-third of it into a sub-page. I can't save either one of them. I have put off looking for help for this mainly because I have been spending time writing some new articles in connection with the WikiProject Military History backlog reduction drive this month and thought this might take some time to figure out. I know the page is long but not so long that changes have not taken until this month, and the page has been much longer for quite some time though it may not appear so at first glance due to use of collapsible sections.
If you can provide some help or guidance, I will appreciate it. I realize this may not be an administrator's area so I do not want to take up a lot of time on this.
I have put an updated version of just the first part of my user page at User:Donner60/sandbox#Sandbox user page temporarily. Since my user page had quite a lot of vandalism in the past and was semi-protected by Delta Quad in 2016, I thought it might be a good idea for that page to be semi-protected in case some vandal discovers it. So I ask that you semi-protect that page.
Thanks for you help. By the way, I hope the coronavirus is not affecting you or your family and that it is not causing you too much inconvenience or even loss. Donner60 ( talk) 04:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I cam across User talk:77.97.43.28, full of warning out of 2011. I do not believe that the same user will still be using that IP. And I think that a new warning should not be c0onnected with an earlier sockpuppet. So, can I clear it and add the new warning? The Banner talk 13:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, just a note to say thank you for this which I had great delight in reading today. Currently, like most of Planet Earth, I'm struggling to find things to do; Spring is yet to indicate as to whether it's safe to carry out this year's first batch of garden chores; the classic car is still in hibernation, so that was out of bounds; my other classic blew a head gasket last weekend, but there's nowhere open to get the bloody thing fixed, and there's not much on TV that offers a break from all the corono-depression that is currently bleeding out of my tv screen. So it was both a thrill and a pleasure to come across The Coral Island today, on my travels around the turgid nonsense going on elsewhere on WP. Thank you. Cassianto Talk 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, could you or any of your page-watchers please intervene in Christchurch mosque shootings article? The article contains original research in the background section which seems to be added there to justify what that terrorist did. I was reverted by an editor who seems not to understand what an original research is. see here- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
shows up in the thoughts I hope you can read from my mind about a discussion at Talk:Nazism by Kike korrektor (well, that was their original username, they wanted it changed to Kkorrektor but didn't get that either}. Anyway, if you read "To spare me from the necessity of writing an essay , please read National Socialist Program points 7. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 20. 21. So the nazis stated 'social policies' (or however you want to phrase that haha) are a key tenet of their ideology. Given how many points address it, given all the policies they've implemented to achieve it, I find 'embettering the social aspects of life' (subject to rephrasing) to be one of the major ideas of nazism. So I propose to include that in the article about the nazi ideology." and then look at those points at National Socialist Program, guess what I'm thinking? NN Doug Weller talk 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You blocked this user a few months ago for a personal attack and their talk page history is nothing but warnings to knock it off; they've decided to go guns-blazing into an AfD and drop the n-word into the nom and go polemic because 'white house staffers' use the term. I'm not sure this is on its face blockable (I'd warn on the AfD in response, but I'm not into serving troll food today), but it does seem like they're trying to come in and use fighting words to goad out an argument from some poor AfD regular just looking to vote! and nothing more. Nate • ( chatter) 09:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
He is known for three things: 1. very wide vocal range 2. singing in multiple music genres 3. mixing vocal techniques from different music genres in one song.
Therefore that article cannot be left without mentioning his vocal range.
Is that acceptble as reference? https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/music/vocal-sensation-dimash-kudaibergen-coming-to-dubai-1.67143229 The source is an established daily newspaper available in print in several countries. Gulf News — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeUnknown010 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The text doesn't say anything about multiple genres and mixing vocal techniques and I didn't intend to use it as reference for that (it is not missing in his Wikipedia article), but only as reference, that he is known for his wide vocal range. That fact simply cannot be missing in the article, because he is primarily known for it, and whoever heard him sing, says, that he has the widest vocal range (to make it clear: I don't mean to write in the article, that he has the widest range ever, just that he is known for a wide range) he has ever heard. That fact is also not contested or questioned by anyone anywhere. MeUnknown010 ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Found another possible reference, an article about him mentioning his range: https://www.souzveche.ru/articles/culture/43136/?fbclid=IwAR2ZIwMY5G0zyey2DPTGL7Ihvh6TEth9szGhzV-UIyudEsW7AIG__DP-E14 Source: a newspaper available in print in Russia and Belarus. MeUnknown010 ( talk) 23:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Hey Drmies and Praxidicae, I think I owe you an apology. I completely screwed up my initial comment on that AfD, and I should have assumed good faith from you when you responded. I only rarely participate in politically charged discussions, and I didn't realize just how much one should be careful with their words when commenting on those pages. So, sorry, and I'll try to do better next time. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 13:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Cengizsogutlu ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So far in the course of the "discussion" on Doogh, user:Cengizsogutlu has edit-warred [13] [14] [15] [16], issued a personal attack, accused other editor(s) of "hating Turks" and canvassed another editor to assist them on the article Doogh.
Their canvassing post at user:Beshogur talk page:
Google translated:
Not sure what can be done. I have posted a warning concerning the Wikipedia:CANVASSING. [17] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
On 3 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goulven of Léon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Breton saint Goulven of Léon may have been confused with a legendary murderer and rapist featured in the poem " Gwerz Skolan", giving rise to a number of place names with elements of both individuals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goulven of Léon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Goulven of Léon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
On 3 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gwerz Skolan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Breton saint Goulven of Léon may have been confused with a legendary murderer and rapist featured in the poem " Gwerz Skolan", giving rise to a number of place names with elements of both individuals? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Gwerz Skolan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Even if he were as competent at writing as he believes he is, his attitude would be annoying and, yes, disruptive. But producing something like "encountered apprehended threats" [18] when he means "countered perceived threats" is just absurd. And if you do anything to try to make the phrasing more clear and less stilted has has a fit. What's up with this guy? Not the first time I have run into him but it is getting old. There should be a wikiaward for most extraneous and obscure words introduced. If it can be said in 20 words instead of 10 in a way that will cause the average reader to have to go over it 10 times before understanding, that is "well-woven" text according to him. —DIYeditor ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Help! I'm playing whack-a-mole for unsourced additions by user IPv6 2605:e000 who you reverted here, but who has also been active on numerous other articles, mostly related to Mexico in some way, and exhibiting signs of WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. See for example: Latin America, History of the United States (2008–present), Economy of Mexico, Immigration to Mexico, and others (see slash-64 rev history). I added one discussion at User_talk:2605:E000:93C1:5B00:6DF3:7890:D460:E021#Latin America, but he'll probably never see it, as he pops up at a different IP nearly every time. Mathglot ( talk) 06:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Drmies! I read an article you put a lot of work in that was linked from the DYK section on the Main Page: Goulven of Léon. I have a bit of an issue with the first paragraph of the Biography section: “The spring (the Feunteun Sant Goulven), now near the saint's church, still cures people miraculously.[3]”. I am not sure if miraculous cures should be stated as a fact like that, or if it should be more along the lines of supposed miracles being attributed to the spring. I cannot read the original source, and am not sure how to phrase any changes, so I was hoping you could help me. If, in the end, it does in fact cure miraculously - do you know its track record for arthritis? Biskitty ( talk) 21:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no proper debate, just going in circles and ignoring other editors while pushing wanted content etc. I would like to kindly invite you as an independent and experienced editor to weigh in, because this may easily get out of hand. [20] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd just like to pop up a call for help. You may remember an IBAN between two difficult personalities: HiLo48 and yours truly. Somehow that got dropped, and we've worked on the same articles more or less serenely until recently.
I took your advice - I think it was you, but wise advice anyway - to stay away from his user pages and contributions list. I've been noticing a tendency recently that I'll edit an article or make some comment on the talk page, and then this editor responds. I figure that we both edit the same pages in the same area of Australian politics, we have the option that stacks any new pages onto a crowded watchlist, and when there's an edit, we go check it. Edits on political articles are often worrisome, with people pushing barrows wanting to slant the path a bit in their direction. Presumably we both have the laudable objective of keeping things on the level.
A look at our contributions list shows that there's no stalking going on. If I make a spelling fix on an article about some old British frigate, I can be confident this guy won't surface and paint a comment on the side. And I have no interest in most of the stuff he looks at. It's just the Australian politics topics.
Anyway, we interact, and until recently this wasn't a problem.
But now it is.
Perhaps it's time for another IBAN. Or maybe there's some other path. This sort of crap is a distraction, and last time there was a dramatic exit and a wikiholiday. This chap does a lot of good work and I'd hate him to get upset or leave, but I get the feeling that I've gone about as far as I can in asking him to take it cool and stay on-topic. As a diplomat, I make a good bricklayer. I know my limitations. -- Pete ( talk) 02:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
If there is an IBAN that was never appealed and thereby cancelled, then the two editors involved had better stop violating the IBAN. If either party wants to appeal the IBAN, then ANI or AN is the correct venue. Otherwise, these two editors need to observe any IBAN that was enacted. Softlavender ( talk) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you think I really care about some of the trivia we discuss? I care about someone bucking the system to push their own OR barrow without quoting sources or policy. Yelling at other editors to get one's own way doesn't work; it just makes the excursion outside the system more egregious. Why not count to ten or go meditate for a bit when the red mist rises. Go find a piece of wikipolicy to hit the other guy with. I mean, it's what I do, and I don't get all wrapped around the axles over it. It just gives me another excuse to admire the beauty of the system.
What has been very helpful in my life has been the School of Practical Philosophy, which teaches mindfulness and ways of handling stress. There are branches in Victoria and I can recommend them highly. I am no longer with that mob - the Canberra group fell apart - but I found a similar study society looking at the same material.
Or we could take up one of Drmies' excellent suggestions. Find a potential DYK article and work on that together sounds good. If it's something we can agree on, I'm more than happy to be agreeable and have an excuse to do so. -- Pete ( talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I reckon the only way that Skyring & HiLo48 are gonna break their impasse is to take it to ANI or Arbcom. GoodDay ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reuben Bright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Octet ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You removed the evidence I linked. I am sorry if it broke any rules, but how else should I do it? That guy seems to be stalking me and refuses to tell me why he wants my social media accounts. I've never talked to that person before. -- KingErikII ( トークページ) 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
As much as I completely agree that signatures should correspond to usernames and shouldn't use non-latin scripts, AFAIK it's something the community has repeatedly rejected (or lacked consensus on), meaning we have dozens of regulars whose signatures fall afoul of those rules. Always a shame to see newbies told they['re the only ones who] need to follow certain rules... :/ In case it's not clear, signatures that cannot be typed, or which require looking up the username behind it are a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so in part I'm secretly hoping you enforce this with the regulars, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not made any personal attack to User talk:Nikkimaria, see the talk page, all I did was point her error, which is allowed, making false threat of personal attack is Wikipedia:Harassment, regardless we are trying to resolve a dispute, and LI just showed her history of abuse of unreliable sources, and history of edit warring, where is the personal attack? I even told her to see WP:DR multiple times. Please check it, it was not a personal attack, I just showed her abusive edit history. Dilbaggg ( talk) 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if you'd noticed, but your talk page isn't being archived any more. I noticed a bizarre error from sigmabot [21] and wondered what was going on. It looks like your "total spam" URL is now blocking sigmabot from archiving your talk page. Pretty hilarious. Tarl N. ( discuss) 09:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it my imagination or is there too much self-sourced material there now? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, could you kindly protect the page Mey Chan again? There has been a persistent vandal who loves to make up information about her. Her page in Indonesian has been permanently protected because the vandal kept returning. Mimihitam ( talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)